Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

NAREY INQUIRY

ordered
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of a Report of an inquiry into the escape of a prisoner from HM Prison Maze on 10th December and the shooting of a prisoner on 27th December 1997. —[Mr. Betts.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The President of the Board of Trade was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Fuel Prices

Mr. Home Robertson: If she will make a statement on the availability and price of ultra-low-sulphur diesel at urban and rural retail sites. [35973]

The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I expect the availability of ultra-low-sulphur diesel fuel to increase following the changes in the relative levels of excise duty between that fuel and conventional diesel that were announced in the Budget recently. The price at which the product is sold is a matter for the retailers.

Mr. Home Robertson: The new incentive in the Budget for drivers to use ultra-low-sulphur diesel fuel should have been good news. Is my hon. Friend aware that there was less rejoicing in my constituency than there might have been because the fuel is not available for sale anywhere in East Lothian? I understand that virtually all of it is imported and that very little gets as far as Scotland. Will my hon. Friend take the oil companies firmly by the throat at the earliest opportunity and tell them to stop discriminating against consumers in rural areas in general, and Scotland in particular, and to ensure that this excellent product is available on forecourts throughout the country?

Mr. Battle: I welcome my hon. Friend's question. Ultra-low-sulphur diesel is known as city diesel fuel and is available from supermarkets—the main retailers at the moment—in towns and cities. I accept what my hon. Friend says about rural areas. If the differential is not a sufficient incentive to produce a positive bias in favour of providing the fuel, I shall push the matter further. I know that the Scottish Office recently undertook a study of rural petrol stations, and the report is expected in May. Let us

hope that that is another means of taking the measure forward in Scotland as well, since it will have a positive environmental impact.

Oral Answers to Questions — Low Pay Commission

Mr. Levitt: When she last met the chairman of the Low Pay Commission. [35975]

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade last met Professor George Bain, chairman of the Low Pay Commission, on 11 February 1998.

Mr. Levitt: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency, there are 4,500 families on family credit, and that throughout the east midlands, no fewer than 87,000 people are working for a rate of £2.50 an hour or less? Is he further aware that the national minimum wage will work to improve the welfare of those families? Does he agree that any softening of the line on the national minimum wage from the Leader of the Opposition—even if not from the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—is welcome, even though, coming from the party which abolished the wages councils, it will be regarded with incredulity?

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the main reasons why the activities of the Low Pay Commission are so welcome is that they give us an opportunity to implement what is a major manifesto promise at an early stage. It is interesting that, since the weekend, the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), has remained silent for once. He has not yet given a commitment to support his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition by ditching his opposition to the minimum wage and accepting that now, without any doubt, the policy is overwhelmingly supported throughout Britain—and seemingly also within the Conservative party.

Mr. Fabricant: Before the Minister begins his normal high-pitched tirade, may I say that I have always felt that a minimum wage is no bad thing in terms of protecting the least able in our society? Why does he not accept the model which exists in the United States, about which the Prime Minister has repeatedly spoken with much affection? In the United States of America, the national minimum wage varies by region, and people are exempt on grounds of youth or if they work in certain industries, such as tourism. What does the chairman of the Low Pay Commission have to say about what the minimum wage should be in Northern Ireland, as compared with the south-east of the United Kingdom?

Mr. McCartney: I will do a deal with the hon. Gentleman: if he does not mention my accent, I will not mention his hair.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It's not his hair.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, "It's not his hair," but I would not be so cruel as to suggest that. The hon. Gentleman is trying


hard to defend the indefensible, but the British people want the national minimum wage to meet the needs of the low paid. That is why the Low Pay Commission will make its recommendations by the end of May and why, soon afterwards, the Government will implement the national minimum wage.

Mr. Boswell: Every time Conservative Members identified a difficulty with the minimum wage in Committee, the Minister of State referred the matter to the Low Pay Commission. Will he now defer consideration of the Bill in Committee in another place until the Low Pay Commission has reported next month, when it will be clear to everyone whether, as usual, he has been rolled over and has had to accept a compromise figure of, for example, £3.60 per hour?

Mr. McCartney: I am a difficult person to roll over—although once I start rolling, it is hard to stop me. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no. We have made it clear that, in implementing the Low Pay Commission's recommendations, we will return to the House with secondary legislation, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure—at each stage, the House can debate and take a view on implementation of the minimum wage.

Oral Answers to Questions — Competitiveness

Jacqui Smith: If she will make a statement on the impact of the Chancellor's Budget measures on the competitiveness of British companies. [35977]

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Budget will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of British companies. Business needs economic stability, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made a key theme of his Budget statement. The Budget also contained a number of practical measures to promote competitiveness through long-term investment and enterprise, such as further cuts in corporation tax rates, the abolition of advance corporation tax and the reform of capital gains tax. The Budget will also encourage work and create a fairer society.

Jacqui Smith: I recognise the challenges that British business faces as a result of the high value of the pound, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the clear differences between the Government and an opportunistic and inconsistent Opposition are shown in their respective approaches to the issue? The Opposition are proposing short-term panic measures, with little economic rationale or consistency, whereas the Government have, in the Budget, reduced corporate tax, reformed the tax system and cut regulatory burdens, all of which will improve the long-term competitiveness and success of British business.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. She identifies a major theme of the Chancellor's approach and of the policies that he has already implemented. Unlike the Conservative party, we do not merely talk about the long-term national interest; we act to secure it.

Mr. Breed: There has been much concentration on the problems that exporting companies face as a result of

the current value of the pound, but have the Government considered the problems of companies that are competing against imported products, which are now obviously much cheaper? Such companies find themselves at an extreme disadvantage.

Mrs. Beckett: We take account of all aspects of the impact of the level of sterling. The hon. Gentleman will know that we believe that we should strive to make the exchange rate not only stable but competitive. He will also be aware that it is not easy in the short term for Governments to influence these things. It is right, however, to take measures to create long-term stability, and that is what we are doing.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend initiate discussions not only in her Department and with the Chancellor, but in Cabinet, about the strength of sterling, which has become Britain's primary economic problem? Does she recall that between 1979 and 1981, when the pound became a petrol currency, 2 million jobs in manufacturing industry were lost as a result of its overvaluation? Moreover, between 1989 and 1992, the pound was valued in the exchange rate mechanism at DM2.95, which was not competitive and produced a second recession. Now that the pound is valued at DM3, Britain is again not competitive. That is a vital problem—we cannot achieve economic stability when sterling is at this level.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and he is entirely right to draw attention to the Conservative party's record. Manufacturing output has risen, on the latest figures, despite the difficulties that he identifies.

Mr. Redwood: Has the President of the Board of Trade now read the Budget documentation, which shows that the corporation tax changes will cost British business £4.6 billion more—not a cut, but an increase—over the lifetime of this Parliament? Has she seen that the national insurance changes mean a big increase in the cost of employing anyone other than those on low pay? Does she not realise that that is taxation by stealth, and taxation of jobs? Does she not see that it is taking money away from companies that desperately need it for research and development and for investment for more jobs at a time of unprecedented pressure on manufacturing?

Mrs. Beckett: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about companies needing money for investment and research, which is why the Government are taking steps to give them incentives to support both investment and research and development, which is more than the previous Government did.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I had looked at the Red Book and the figures for the changes in corporation tax over the lifetime of this Parliament. He must be well aware that, while the changes in corporation tax will have an impact in the short term, in the long term there will be a substantial reduction in payments of corporation tax, of the order—from memory—of £2 billion a year. That is why the Budget's overall impact has been so warmly welcomed by business.

Mr. Sheerman: My right hon. Friend will know how widely British businesses, and especially those who are


engaged in innovation and investment with universities, have welcomed many of the measures in the Budget. Will she continue the pressure from her Department to get a deal similar to the overseas development deal, whereby if individuals or companies put money into university research they get a partnership, in the form of a tax bonus or some tax back, that will encourage the vital growth of innovation that links private sector business with our excellent university research capacity?

Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend plays a huge role in promoting British manufacturing and research and development. He will be aware of the many steps that the Government are taking to encourage industry, and people in the science and engineering base in universities and beyond, to work together, including the announcement of the university challenge programme in the Budget. I entirely share the view that that is important and will promote Britain's long-term competitiveness. I assure him that we shall continue to act in that way.

Mr. Baldry: What assessment she has made of the impact of the value of sterling on the competitiveness of United Kingdom exports. [35978]

Mrs. Beckett: The Government understand the difficulties that exporters face as a result of the level of sterling, but competitiveness depends on a range of factors. The Budget introduced several measures to create a tax system that promotes entrepreneurship and long-term investment. My Department is working in partnership with business to address other issues central to the competitiveness of British industry.

Mr. Baldry: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that many hon. Members will have received a briefing today from the aluminium industry, representing companies such as Alcan in Banbury, which says:
Many exporting companies are now at or beyond the point of zero margin, a situation compounded by the fact that some traditional Far East markets have disappeared completely. Increases in interest rates continue to exacerbate the situation"?
It is hardly surprising that yesterday's Financial Times found that the west midlands is a heartland on the brink of recession. The Birmingham chamber of commerce reports that exports from Birmingham companies are still at "dangerously low levels". [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am surprised that Labour Members—

Madam Speaker: Order. The latest report from the Modernisation Committee allows hon. Members to quote, so the hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order.

Mr. Baldry: I am sorry that Labour Members are so apathetic about what is happening in Birmingham and what its chamber of commerce reports: that while the pound stays so strong, exporting companies in Birmingham and the west midlands will remain on the brink of recession. What do the Government intend to do to ensure that this country is not driven into recession because of the Chancellor's unwillingness to take any action on the level of the pound?

Mrs. Beckett: I listened with care to the hon. Gentleman and, of course, I have considerable contacts, though I have not seen the Alcan report to which he

referred. Of course we understand the concerns expressed in many parts of the country, although, as I pointed out, manufacturing output has just risen again. It is interesting that he and other Conservative Members express such concern about the level of sterling and its impact on manufacturers. Where was he when, under the previous Government, sterling reached levels that it has not yet reached today when the then Chancellor was shadowing the deutschmark? Where was he when interest rates rose to 15 per cent.? Clearly, he was not on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Skinner: I wonder whether we can get to know exactly what the Tory policy is on the pound. They seem to be gradually coming round to the view that they want a weak pound. I would like to know from my right hon. Friend what are the values of a weak pound. The Tories devalued after black Wednesday, 16 September 1992, when they lost £10 billion in an afternoon, and never went near a betting shop. The Chancellor of the Exchequer sent for a radio to find out what was happening outside on the stock exchange. The Prime Minister locked himself in the lavatory. I do not want to go back to those days. Will my right hon. Friend say what are the values of a weak, devalued, Tory pound?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes some powerful points with his customary verve. I feel entirely unable to answer on behalf of the Conservative party. We gave the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) the opportunity in a debate only a few days ago to say what the Conservatives' policy was and what they proposed should happen. I had the distinct impression, from what he did not say, that their policy was to put up taxes, which he is perhaps unwilling to admit. We are well aware that the Conservative party had no answer for these issues in government any more than it has in opposition. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, 70 per cent. of the increase in the value of sterling, about which Conservative Members now complain, took place under their Government before the general election.

Sir Peter Tapsell: As a Member who at the time publicly opposed the policy of shadowing the deutschmark and joining the exchange rate mechanism, may I ask the right hon. Lady if she would have a quiet word with her esteemed colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer and explain to him, as I tried to do in the early days of this Parliament, that if control of fiscal policy is separated from that of monetary policy by putting fiscal policy under elected politicians and monetary policy under appointees, whether economists or bankers, the invariable and inevitable result must be higher interest rates and lower taxes than would otherwise be the case? The ultimate price for that is paid in manufacturing and unemployment levels.

Mrs. Beckett: I respect the hon. Gentleman's record in drawing those concerns to the attention of his colleagues, but he talked of record interest rate levels. We are not remotely near the levels—

Sir Peter Tapsell: Not yet.

Mrs. Beckett: Not yet? We are at less than half the level of interest rates under the previous Government.


On whether such a course inevitably leads to lower taxes, I have too much respect for the hon. Gentleman's ability and experience not to know that he is perfectly aware that fiscal measures can encompass more than taxation. Indeed, I recall that, over many years, he has called for fiscal measures to tighten public expenditure. I believe that not even he is complaining about the tightness of public expenditure or the management of the fiscal stance under this Government.

Mr. Winnick: The value of the pound is rather high and is undoubtedly causing difficulties, not least in the west midlands, and my right hon. Friend will no doubt take that very much into consideration, but do the Government need any lectures from the Conservative party, during whose 18 years in office 2.5 million manufacturing jobs were lost, not least in the west midlands? Surely they are the last people to lecture us on job losses.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. The difficulties in the west midlands under the previous Government, of which he rightly reminds us, arose as a result of deliberate Government policy in seeking to drive up the level of sterling and keep it high. We saw exchange rates, interest rates and job losses then that we are not seeing today.

Mr. Redwood: The Government tell us that they are creating a stable and competitive exchange rate. [HON. MEMBERS: "What's your policy?"] I will tell hon. Members our policy: promote savings, do not tax them. That is what the Government need to do at the moment. Yet so far under the Labour Government sterling has risen by 11 per cent. against the deutschmark and by more against other important European and Asian currencies. The pound is clearly uncompetitive at those levels, as any industrialist will tell the right hon Lady. So will she tell us what today's policy is? Is it to make the pound stable at those uncompetitive levels or does she wish to make it competitive by getting it down from those levels? How does she intend to do either? The truth is that it is out of control and the Government are destroying manufacturing as a result.

Mrs. Beckett: I find it extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman has the gall to carry on like that when he knows perfectly well that he was a member of a Government who drove interest rates to levels twice those that we see now and saw sterling, as a deliberate act of Government policy, at levels above those that we see now. Yes, our policy is to promote long-term stability and to have in that long term a stable but competitive pound. Long-term interest rates, as a result of what the Government are doing, are lower than short-term interest rates. That is a clear sign that we are going in the right direction. The record of the Conservative party on these matters is absolutely catastrophic and it is extraordinary that it has the gall to raise it.

Oral Answers to Questions — Small and Medium-sized Companies

Mr. Darvill: What measures her Department has taken to encourage small and medium-sized companies to expand their export business. [35979]

The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): My noble Friend the Minister for Trade, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office—my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett)—and I launched, on 25 March, a new package of measures to help smaller companies to export. These included export explorer, aimed at helping new and inexperienced exporters to break into European markets, and a new internet-based service for matching overseas customers with British suppliers.

Mr. Darvill: Does my hon. Friend agree that those measures show that her Department is working in partnership with business to influence competitiveness, unlike the previous Government, who constantly failed to listen to business and rode roughshod over its concerns?

Mrs. Roche: Yes, of course I agree with my hon. Friend. I thank him for his remarks. We wanted to add to the many excellent small and medium-sized firms that have a good export record new firms which could benefit from some targeted assistance. The proposals have gone down extremely well. We are determined to pursue them. We believe that they will add to the competitiveness of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Given that small and medium-sized companies are sensitive to movements in the pound, does the Minister recognise that in fact Governments do have some influence on the pound—first by giving a guide to the market that there is a measured timetable for entry into the single currency and, secondly, by indicating that if there is a single monetary policy, whether within the United Kingdom or within the European Union, greater emphasis needs to be put on management of the fiscal balance, especially incentives to save? That is available to Her Majesty's Government.

Mrs. Roche: I note what the hon. Gentleman has to say. Of course, he was a Minister—indeed, a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry—in the previous Government. He was equally responsible for the record of the previous Government, who went from boom to bust and then back again. What the hon. Gentleman has just espoused is clearly not the position of his Front-Bench colleagues. That is presumably why he left the Front-Bench team. May I again say, as my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has said, that we are planning for the long term. What small firms want to know above all is where they will be not only tomorrow but in the next six months. That is what his Government failed to do and we are determined to deliver it.

Mr. Pike: Do not small and medium-sized firms increasingly want to be involved in the export business and to employ more people? One of their worries is that, as a result of the previous Government's record, we are not able to go into the single European currency. They are worried about what will happen when the euro is introduced and we are not able fully to influence exchange rates because we are outside it.

Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend makes some good points. The previous Government's astonishing lack of preparation let down British businesses. This Administration have gone in, picked up the pieces,


and made sure that we put practical measures in place. What is important is that we concentrate on our small and medium enterprises and provide them with a targeted focus. It was the Conservatives' failure on small businesses that drove them to vote for this Government last May.

Mrs. Gillan: The Minister needs to face reality and understand that even her best-intended efforts are failing, because the Government are making it increasingly difficult for small firms to expand their exports. Has she had time to look at the NatWest quarterly survey, which shows that more small firms expect to cut employment in the first quarter of 1998 than to increase it? Has she read this week's Office World survey, which shows that the performance of small firms has slowed at a record rate during the last quarter; that small firms have experienced a reduction in turnover on a scale not seen since the survey began in 1994; that manufacturing is down by 15 per cent.; that 60 per cent. of companies report no growth or a decline in orders; and that Labour's support has fallen to its lowest level since November 1994? Is it not obvious that the honeymoon between small businesses and the Labour party is now over and that the Government are proving disastrous for small businesses?

Mrs. Roche: I noticed that, in the list of purported facts the hon. Lady quotes, she did not mention the Office World survey figure that showed that the party that enjoyed the greatest support among small businesses was the Labour party—she seems to have forgotten that. Can that be the reason why, not so long ago, the hon. Lady told The Sunday Times that the Conservative party had lost the small business vote and that, because the Conservatives had got it wrong last time, people would be seeing few policies from her? The Labour party is absolutely determined to help small and medium businesses, which is why we have taken all the measures we have.

Oral Answers to Questions — National Minimum Wage

Mr. Drew: If she will make a statement on progress towards implementing a national minimum wage. [35980]

Mr. Ian McCartney: The Government are making excellent progress towards introducing a statutory national minimum wage for the first time in the United Kingdom during this Session of Parliament. The National Minimum Wage Bill had its Second Reading in another place on Monday 23 March.

Mr. Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for that statement. Does he accept that the national minimum wage is widely welcomed in Stroud, especially by those decent businesses that aim to pay a fair wage, in marked contrast to those rogue employers who exploit their employees? Does he also accept that those decent businesses find their natural home in the Labour party, unlike those rogues and exploiters who gain solace only in the Conservative party?

Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments and congratulate him and my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), who have campaigned long and hard for the introduction of a national minimum wage. In the south-west, 90,000 people

earn less than £2.50; and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), 1,300 families are so poor at the end of the week because of low pay that they have to rely on in-work benefits to survive. That is why at the last election the British people, in droves, supported the Labour party pledge to introduce, as a matter of urgency, a national minimum wage. I repeat the question asked of the Conservative Front Benchers: why have they not, in connection with any of the questions asked about low pay, come to the Dispatch Box and supported their own leader's decision to do a U-turn and support the national minimum wage?

Mr. Prior: Does the Minister expect the national minimum wage to increase jobs or reduce them?

Mr. McCartney: The national minimum wage, set at a proper level, will be a job creator, not a job loser. During the period in which the national minimum wage was introduced and uprated, the United States has created more than 11 million new jobs. There is no evidence whatever that an appropriately set minimum wage will cost jobs, but it will give low-paid workers an opportunity to purchase goods and services that they cannot currently afford. Does the hon. Gentleman know of any country in the world where a national minimum wage for hairdressers has stopped that country's people having a haircut? It is absolute nonsense to suggest that people will lose out by the introduction of a national minimum wage.

Oral Answers to Questions — Industrial Relations

Barbara Follett: What steps her Department is taking to promote co-operation between employers and employees in the workplace. [35983]

Mr. Ian McCartney: The Government are committed to decent, minimum standards of employment for all, underpinned by partnership at work. That is the best route to competitiveness.

Barbara Follett: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that recent initiatives by large employers such as British Aerospace and Tesco to improve workplace co-operation show that the present Government, unlike the Conservative party, are in touch with the needs of British business?

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I join her in congratulating businesses on those initiatives. I also congratulate my hon. Friend because I understand that, this morning, her daughter Kim had a baby girl of 6 lb 9 oz. As a grandfather, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend, and I shall send her a bottle of best Californian red, called Redwood. It is very drinkable, unlike the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who is not very eatable.
The Government are absolutely committed to the principles and concepts of partnership in the workplace. Employees deserve to be treated fairly in the workplace, whether or not they are in a union. Joint efforts between management and employees to develop the business are the best way forward for British industry. That is why, overwhelmingly, in Britain, good business thrives where


businesses treat their staff appropriately. I add as a footnote that 88 per cent. of top companies in Britain recognise trade unions.

Mr. Chidgey: In the context of the Minister's last remark, does he recall the Labour party manifesto pledge that trade union recognition would be a legal right where a majority of the relevant work force voted in favour? I am sure that the whole House would be grateful if he would take the opportunity to define for us what he means by "relevant".

Mr. McCartney: We gave a commitment at the general election, and we will honour it. Discussions taking place between the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry will produce, in the first half of this year, a White Paper, leading to legislation to introduce recognition in the workplace. That measure will be a major achievement in co-operation between both sides of industry.
I repeat that the purpose of the Government's drive for fairness and minimum standards in the workplace is to introduce a new culture in Britain: a culture of partnership. The "Fairness at Work" White Paper will be a major component in driving that policy.

Mr. O'Neill: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the surest ways of ending co-operation and partnership is to facilitate derecognition of trade unions? Therefore, will he do all that he can in the forthcoming weeks to ensure that firms with very few employees will still be able to enjoy the full fruits of trade union membership?

Mr. McCartney: The Government's policy is clear. We want to ensure that, in the workplace, individuals have the right, not only to join a union, but to enjoy the opportunities for that union to represent them in the workplace. The "Fairness at Work" White Paper will provide an opportunity to make it clear how that fits into the Government's strategy and policy on trade unions. It is also true that we want to encourage, throughout industry, partnership arrangements that bring workers, trade unions and employers together, to develop their enterprise and make it successful. My hon. Friend can rest assured, therefore, that the Government support and promote the interests of people in the workplace, and the idea that those interests should be represented by trade unions.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Given that, this week, on a visit to an employment centre in Penryn in Cornwall, the Education and Employment Select Committee found that there were virtually no jobs on offer at a rate of more than £3.50 an hour, does the Minister accept that, unless the minimum wage is set at a much lower figure than that, in areas such as Cornwall there will not be so many employees in the workplace?

Mr. McCartney: There is another hon. Member who disagrees with his leader. The hon. Gentleman wants to introduce wage cuts in the workplace. The Low Pay Commission has visited every region in the United Kingdom—Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and the south-west—has taken evidence and, at the end of May, will set out its recommendations. Hon. Members can rest assured that, when the commission produces those

recommendations, I believe that British employers will accept them overwhelmingly and will move quickly to implement a successful national minimum wage.

Oral Answers to Questions — Research and Development

Mr. Jim Cunningham: If she will make a statement on her Department's policy towards encouraging research and development in British companies. [35984]

Mr. Battle: The Government recognise, and publicly acknowledge, the importance of encouraging research and development as an absolutely vital component of innovation and improved competitiveness.

Mr. Cunningham: What responses has my hon. Friend received, first, from industry and, secondly, from universities regarding research and development? The previous Government decimated the west midlands. Several hon. Members led deputations to former Tory Ministers to discuss that matter, but we received no response. As a result, some highly paid engineers in the west midlands became shelf-stackers at Sainsbury's.

Mr. Battle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. From day one, we have worked to strengthen investment in United Kingdom research and development and to build a partnership with industry and academia. We have invested in measures such as the joint research equipment initiative. We have pushed forward the foresight link awards, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the university challenge in the Budget. Those measures have been welcomed by industry and by universities as a way of turning the corner and reversing the cuts in research and development that were made by the previous Administration.

Mr. Gibb: How does the Minister believe that raising the employers' national insurance contribution rate from 10 per cent. to 12.2 per cent., as announced in the Budget, will help companies that are engaged in research and development?

Mr. Battle: I am amazed by Opposition Members: they suffer from permanent amnesia. The Conservative Government cut research and development. Their figures show that there was a 6 per cent. reduction in Government spending on R and D and a 3 per cent. reduction in business spending on R and D under the previous Administration. Our measures will strengthen industry. We will encourage business to look to the longer term and to invest in research as a means of achieving a long-term future. Our fiscal measures go some way to underpinning that, which is why they were warmly welcomed.

Oral Answers to Questions — Domestic Accidents

Audrey Wise: What steps she is taking to ensure that publicity is given to the dangers to pre-school children of burns and scalds in the kitchen. [35985]

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): On 24 February, the Department of Trade and Industry launched its safety awareness campaign to alert parents to the hazard of burns


and scalds in the home. Some 3,500 pre-school children are injured and end up in hospital every year as a result of such accidents. The campaign involved distributing 2 million safety leaflets and screening four television advertisements to illustrate the hazards.

Audrey Wise: I thank my hon. Friend for launching that campaign. I know that he shares my concern about the safety of small children. He is undoubtedly aware that some of the nastiest accidents occur when small children pull pans off cookers. Is my hon. Friend also aware that it is possible to buy pan guards to stop that happening? However, those pan guards are sold as separate add-ons of which most people are totally unaware. Will my hon. Friend ask manufacturers to include integral pan guards in new cooker designs or attempt to get pan guards accepted as a British standard? Does he agree that manufacturers should accept more responsibility for the safety of their products?

Mr. Griffiths: The House, and indeed the country, will be grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting that specific problem and drawing it to the attention of parents, grandparents and others who are responsible for children in the kitchen. I shall certainly ensure that my hon. Friend's concerns are reflected in the Government's policy and are communicated firmly to all those responsible for manufacturing and distributing cookers.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Minister accept that, if he spent a little less time writing questions for his hon. Friends to ask, he might be able to write better answers for himself?

Mr. Griffiths: I would have found the hon. Gentleman much more convincing if I had not seen the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pass him a note at the beginning of Question Time prompting him to ask that ridiculous question.

Mrs. Gilroy: Some of the nastiest burns arise from firework accidents. Has my hon. Friend any plans to build on the highly effective campaign—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry—we have not moved to the bonfire; we are still in the kitchen.

Oral Answers to Questions — Innovation

Mr. Purchase: If she will make a statement on her Department's policy towards encouraging innovation in British companies. [35987]

Mr. Battle: Innovation is the key to competitiveness, and businesses need to innovate if they are to succeed.

Mr. Purchase: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the previous Administration's wilful neglect of our science base, we none the less continue with important work in the scientific field? Does he also agree that British firms have traditionally been rather poor at innovation, with good ideas being sold abroad in order to get the innovation on to the market? Will he assure the House that much of the red tape introduced by the Conservatives for grant qualification purposes will be swept away by the

Government, in order to give an incentive to our firms to get the products that we so splendidly discover and develop on to the market in good time?

Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend has for all his years in the House championed the cause of manufacturing and engineering. Not only will we remove barriers; we will positively promote innovation. That is why we are promoting the millennium products initiative and the foresight link initiative. Across the road in Horseguards parade there is an exhibition, Powerhouse::UK, which sets out the innovative products and processes that will lead us through to the 21st century. There are innovations in engineering, biotechnology and communications. It is a showhouse of what can be achieved with positive support.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Clearly, the Government are strongly of the view that innovation and research and development are essential to the future success and competitiveness of British manufacturing industry. Is it not true, however, that to innovate and to undertake research and development requires money? Frequently, manufacturing industry needs to borrow money to undertake innovation, research and development. Currently, the level of interest rates in the United Kingdom is not particularly helpful to the future success of manufacturing industry or its competitiveness. What measures can the Board of Trade take to mitigate the effects of the high level of interest rates, to ensure that what the House wants—the success of manufacturing industry—can be fully achieved?

Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman, too, has a record of campaigning for manufacturing industry. Of course the interest rates are worrying. However, the information is patchy. A report by the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply this morning states that manufacturers have continued to defy the ravages of a strong pound, so it is not true that all is lost. We will continue to promote innovation and underpin it with fiscal measures.
The consultation document "Innovating for the future—investing in research and development innovation" is of paramount importance to find new partnerships and new ways to ensure that companies invest in the longer term. Some companies such as pharmaceuticals do, but we have a long way to go with many other companies to ensure that they move forward into the 21st century.

Mr. Reed: Does my hon. Friend agree that British innovation has too often led to manufacturing success for other countries? I thank him and his Front-Bench colleagues who have visited Loughborough university in recent months. I issue an invitation to those who have not yet made it to Loughborough to see the excellent innovation work that is going on. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making available £50 million-worth of innovation money, which I know from my discussions with Loughborough university was greatly welcomed? It will lead to more job creation from small innovative ideas that have worldwide links. Two companies that Ministers have already visited in my constituency have created 150 jobs from two simple ideas.


That is how we shall create jobs for this country. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me again in a visit to Loughborough university.

Mr. Battle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I welcome his invitation. It is good to hear that the university challenge scheme and other such measures are already working through. The initiatives that we are taking will have a positive effect.

Mr. Stunell: Does the Minister recognise that innovation is difficult for companies that face the random effects of the anti-dumping textile levy? A company in my constituency, Strines Textiles, is facing 100 job losses, not innovation, as a result of the levy. Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will be strongly behind Strines Textiles' fight to get this temporary levy lifted as soon as possible so as to protect jobs in my constituency?

Mr. Battle: We fought hard and consistently on the measure to which the hon. Gentleman refers and we shall continue to do so to ensure that our industries are not unfairly priced out of the market. We have a consistent line on these matters. We have registered our objections and we shall continue to do so where unfair trading occurs.

Oral Answers to Questions — Consumer Credit

Dr. Vis: What plans she has to consult consumer groups about reforms to consumer credit legislation. [35988]

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I issued consultation documents in February and March to, among others, the National Consumer Council, the Consumers Association and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.

Dr. Vis: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that millions of people throughout the country are grateful to the Government for the work that they are doing on consumer protection after 18 years of virtual absence of such protection? Will my hon. Friend comment on what he might have in mind concerning mortgages, especially with regard to non-status lenders?

Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the policies that we are pursuing. As for non-status lenders, we are increasing the financial limits that are governed by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 from £15,000 to £25,000 to ensure that many more people are offered the protection of the Act, including those who may be subject to the worst mis-selling practices of the mortgage companies at the lower end of the market.

Mr. Hawkins: The Minister is aware from work that we did together during the previous Parliament on a cross-party campaign of my long-standing involvement in consumer credit issues. Will he confirm that in the reforms that he is talking about there will be a concentration on promoting best practice, and that the Government will ensure that praise is given to those major financial institutions that have managed to promote the

use of plain English in documents for consumers while staying within the sometimes necessarily complex provisions of consumer credit legislation?

Mr. Griffiths: I am obviously grateful for all the support that we have for plain English and for ensuring that unfair contracts are not allowed to be foisted on consumers. I welcome the action that the Office of Fair Trading took specifically on unfair contracts in respect of one company that was peddling mortgages in a way that was found not to meet the highest standards that the House would expect.

Oral Answers to Questions — EU Presidency

Mr. Geraint Davies: If she will make a statement on the priority her Department attaches to promoting competitiveness in Europe during the British presidency of the European Union. [35989]

Mrs. Beckett: European competitiveness is a key DTI priority for the UK presidency, just as it is in our policies within the UK. On 11 March, I addressed a debate in the European Parliament on this issue, and next month, when I chair the Industry Council, we shall be having the first full debate on European competitiveness, including how industry and Government can work together. A particularly important feature of our approach to competitiveness is the improvement and completion of the single market.

Mr. Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that exchange rates largely link to external factors in Europe, Asia and Japan, and that the proportion of exporters that are showing a dip in sales is the same as the proportion that are showing lower input costs in terms of raw materials? Does my right hon. Friend agree that about a third of manufacturers serving the domestic market are in boom? Does she agree also that exporters would be best advised to focus on higher productivity and better product differentiation, and then to focus on the home market? In no circumstances should we expose the wider economy to the risk of inflation because of the short-term pain of some exporters.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right to identify that the overall position is much more complicated than the Conservatives seek to pretend. He is also right that our consistent advice to manufacturers and others has been that Britain's long-term competitiveness lies in the pursuit of quality and high added value rather than in simply attempting to compete on price. On all these issues our message has been consistent, and it has been of assistance to people in dealing with the present circumstances with the level of sterling.

Mr. Garnier: What does the President of the Board of Trade consider to be the pound's optimum level against the deutschmark to promote competitiveness?

Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that anyone would attempt to answer such a theoretical question. I simply remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that neither sterling nor interest rates are yet at the level that they reached under the previous Government, which was the result of a deliberate act of policy.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I ask my right hon. Friend a question about competitiveness among Europe's


airline operators? Can she give an assurance that British Airways, with its new cut-price operation, will not be allowed to drive existing cut-price airline operators out of business? Clearly, that would not be in the public interest.

Mrs. Beckett: I am always cautious about being drawn into comment on competition issues in the House. The Government have not only advocated and pursued a policy of strong and fair competition but will continue to do so.

Madam Speaker: Sir Teddy Taylor.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister agree—

Madam Speaker: Sir Teddy, I am calling you for Question 18.

Sir Teddy Taylor: It is Question 17.

Madam Speaker: You have Question 18. Either you want to put it or you do not.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Question 18. Yes, that is me.

Oral Answers to Questions — EU Structural Funds

Sir Teddy Taylor: What assessment she has made of the impact on United Kingdom industry of the changes in European Union structural funds being proposed by the Commission. [35991]

Mrs. Roche: The Commission's proposals for the structural funds and for other structural and cohesion policies for the years 2000 to 2006 were published on 18 March.
The Commission has not published its detailed financial plans for individual member states. In any event, structural funds are designed for the purpose of regional regeneration. It will be difficult to assess the specific impact of any changes on industry.

Sir Teddy Taylor: In thanking the Minister—[Interruption.]
I had an important question on Question 17, which I was unable to ask.
Does the Minister accept that, as the average family in Britain—[Interruption.] This is not funny—[Interruption.] It is not. Does the Minister accept that, as the average family in Britain—whether poor or rich; whether Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat—is paying £5 a week at present towards our net contribution

to the EEC, if these changes go ahead, on top of the changes in regional funding, which are damaging to Scotland and many other places, we will have to pay even more? Will she try hard to ensure that the travel-to-work criteria are changed, so that pockets of unemployment in particular areas are not disregarded for grant purposes? Will she accept that the cost of the EEC to jobs and to people in Britain is excessive?

Mrs. Roche: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, travel-to-work areas are a matter for state aid and assisted area status, not structural funds. He will be glad to hear that we are concerned, as are all member states, to contain the overall costs of structural funds, and that is what we aim to do with the reforms. However, we are disappointed with the draft regulations that have been published by the Commission. Our aim is to have an outcome that is affordable, durable, simpler and more efficient. We are working very hard indeed for an outcome that is fair to the United Kingdom and all its regions.

Mr. McCabe: Is not it true that our negotiations have already secured transitional arrangements until 2004? Does my hon. Friend agree that we should treat with scepticism the views of anyone who still believes, as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) does, that joining the Community was a great disaster, and that the Referendum party could really zoom and be very significant indeed?

Mrs. Roche: I agree with my hon. Friend. Our case on transitional periods has already met with some success, but we also want to ensure that those transitional periods are the same length as for objective 1, and we are working hard to achieve that. The Government recognise that our future lies in Europe, our trade is done there, and it is important to the British public and British businesses that we say that and say it loudly.

Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister assure the House today that, in the regional regeneration of which she spoke, rural areas will not lose out to urban areas, particularly in an area such as Yorkshire and Humberside where South Yorkshire is clearly more densely populated than North Yorkshire, but North Yorkshire also deserves a fair whack of the money?

Mrs. Roche: I well understand the hon. Lady's interest and experience in these matters. We are working hard with everyone and we have also had extensive discussions with local authorities. We want the United Kingdom to be represented by a united voice. We want outcomes which lead to flexibility, but also to a proper balance between urban and rural areas. That is essential.

Maze Prison (Narey Inquiry)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the report of the Narey inquiry into incidents at the Maze prison.
On 10 December, Provisional IRA prisoner Liam Averill escaped from the Maze prison. On the following day, we commissioned an independent inquiry to be undertaken by Martin Narey, the director of regimes in the Prison Service for England and Wales. He was asked to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the escape.
On 27 December, Loyalist Volunteer Force prisoner Billy Wright was killed within the Maze prison. We immediately asked Martin Narey to extend the scope of his inquiry to include the circumstances surrounding the murder.
In addition, Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, was asked immediately to bring forward a full inspection of the Maze.
Martin Narey's detailed and comprehensive report is now before the House. I am grateful to him and his team for completing his inquiry so promptly.
Before going on to consider important aspects of the report, I should like to comment on the third serious incident that has occurred in the Maze—the brutal and savage murder of Mr. David Keys, who was found dead in LVF accommodation on the morning of Sunday 15 March.
I very much regret any incident that leads to the loss of life within prison. I am committed to taking all viable steps to prevent a recurrence, but I must be honest and say emphatically that, even with the most rigorous and severe prison regimes, it is impossible for anyone to guarantee that serious incidents will not happen.
Mr. Keys's murder is, of course, the subject of a Royal Ulster Constabulary investigation and an internal investigation by the Prison Service. However, although Martin Narey had the safety of prisoners continually in mind, the murder raises issues that go beyond the scope of the Narey inquiry. I have, therefore, asked Sir David Ramsbotham, whose inspection of the Maze began on Monday 23 March, to look specifically at the way in which the regime at the Maze impacts on the safety of individual prisoners, and to make recommendations.
As a result of information received during the RUC's investigation, the governor has decided to place LVF prisoners under prison rule 32 for the maintenance of good order and discipline. That is not a punishment, but it does mean that prisoners are kept in cell for up to 23 hours of the day and have restricted association and privileges. Even that reasonable measure resulted in threats to staff, and a number of prisoners refusing prison food, in an effort to overturn the governor's decision.
It is important to bear in mind the fact that Mr. Keys applied to be transferred to the Maze in full knowledge of the conditions there. However, in future, remand prisoners will not move immediately to the Maze, but will be held for a longer period in Maghaberry for assessment. That will give the prison authorities more time to be assured about the safety of such a move.
Martin Narey has described very fully the unique difficulties faced by staff and management at the Maze prison. To quote from his report:
The Maze contains more than 500 paramilitary prisoners, from five different factions, some violently opposed to one another, living in segregated accommodation and enjoying the support of significant communities outside the prison. It is staffed by prison officers who live in the same communities.
Staff at all levels in the Prison Service and their families have been subjected to a campaign of intimidation and attack directed against them. Since the start of the troubles, 29 members of staff have been murdered by paramilitaries. In 1996–97 alone, there were 122 reported threats against staff, and a further 50 officers had to be given special protection. That campaign has been waged against staff in an effort by prisoners and their supporters to impose their will. The campaign continues. Last weekend, there was a live bomb attempt on the home of a female prison officer in Portadown and, in the early hours of Monday morning, a bomb exploded under the car of a retired prison officer living in Carrickfergus.
Given the small size of Northern Ireland and its small prison estate, the dispersal of paramilitary prisoners is not possible. The only prudent option is to hold them in one place. Although the concentration of prisoners has many security advantages, there is a price to be paid. It gives the prisoners the opportunity to take concerted action within the prison, including action against staff.
I know of no other prison that operates under such difficult circumstances, or where staff are under such continual threat and pressure. I share Martin Narey's admiration for those who work at the Maze. Despite the difficulties and dangers, for 14 years until last December, they had contained a difficult population without a single escape.
Martin Narey has also drawn attention to the support that paramilitary prisoners have outside prison. One important consequence of that has been faced by me and my predecessors: the danger that actions taken inside prison, for perfectly sound and defensible penological reasons, may result in disruption and unrest outside prison. Against that background, I am aware that staff and management at the Maze have created conditions of safety and humanity which compare favourably with other prisons in the United Kingdom and beyond, and have been entirely open to impartial observers from outside such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.
In the aftermath of the escape and the murders, I am required to make decisions about the security of prisons and prisoners. Like all my predecessors, however, I must make decisions that balance the security of custody with the safety of our staff. I must also make decisions that balance the requirements of imprisonment with the wider requirements of public order and public safety.
The Government have already taken significant steps to improve security at the Maze prison. In March 1997, a tunnel was found in H block 7. It was the subject of an inquiry by the previous Government, carried out by John Steele. Following the election of the present Government, we have pursued the implementation of the Steele recommendations. Specifically, morning and evening head counts are being taken; each day, five randomly selected cells per block are being given a fabric check; and full block searches are now a weekly feature.


Material coming from stores is now exchanged on a new-for-old basis, and there is now an accurate picture of the amount and nature of the supplies in the blocks. All prisoners on inter-block movement are being searched.
In addition, a programme of physical security measures has been included in the existing block refurbishment programme. Five blocks have been upgraded to date, and work on the remainder is due for completion by mid-August.
Martin Narey has drawn attention to a number of important lapses in security at the Maze. He has made 59 recommendations that he considers will represent real improvements for staff and prisoners.
As Martin Narey said in his report, changes have already been made. In particular, the governor has taken the initiative to put in place regular random full block searches; regular security checks of H block fences; new arrangements for weekend coverage of staffing shortfalls on visits; new arrangements for searching prisoners on visits and for X-raying parcels; and new arrangements for counting visitors at parties.
Some of the remaining recommendations will be taken forward immediately, now that the report has been published. Other recommendations require some detailed consideration; the necessary project teams are being put in place, for instance, to look at security of the roofs of the buildings and improved processes for dealing with visitors.
Some of the issues to be considered vary in their complexity. However, as an assurance of our determination to act on the recommendations and to tighten security, I undertake to make available to Parliament, in three months' time, a progress report on implementation. In addition, and going beyond the recommendations, we have set up a security audit team, which will begin to work immediately and which will provide the chief executive of the Prison Service with the necessary assurance that changes have been made and are working effectively. That may seem to be a small item, but many changes have been recommended over the years in relation to the Maze, and holding a regular security audit will give us the information to know that the change is taking place.
Finally, I should like to deal with the on-going management of the Maze. Martin Narey has not only recorded a number of lapses in security, but dealt with wider matters to do with the safe and secure running of the prison. Those centre on improving the quality of general management and enhancing staff morale and confidence.
The report suggests that the shortcomings cannot be attributed to individuals, but are the result of a slow, but long-running, deterioration caused by staff fears of the consequences of managing paramilitary prisoners, and by the absence of effective middle management.
The shortcomings have also emerged because there is no easy way of dealing with the Maze and the difficult prisoners it contains. The simple truth, which Martin Narey acknowledges, is that the Maze is different, and the policies operated by successive Governments, which we inherited, have reflected exactly that fact.
I could continue with the status quo, but I consider that unacceptable, or I could turn the clock back at the Maze and reassert the sort of regime that operated during the

1980s. However, in my view, turning the clock back would be at a price within the prison and within the community that no reasonable person would be prepared to pay; certainly, no previous Government have taken a different view.
We recognise the problems, but that is not an excuse for complacency. One irony is that the shortcomings noted by Martin Narey had been noted by the Prison Service long before December of last year, and were beginning to be acted on. They were the reason why Martin Mogg, the most senior governor available within the Northern Ireland Prison Service, together with a new management team, was put in place in October 1997 to take over the running of the Maze. Martin Mogg's appointment is temporary, to ensure the vigorous implementation of the Steele recommendations. I am pleased to note Martin Narey's acknowledgement of the good progress that the team has been making.
However, the fact remains, as Martin Narey has concluded, that
the challenge of the Maze is greater than that of any other establishment in the United Kingdom".
I regard it as critical, therefore, that we act as quickly as possible on the Narey inquiry's recommendations. I assure the House that we will do so.
Implementing the Narey report in full will be a considerable task for the Northern Ireland Prison Service. However, I am confident that it will meet the challenge, and I am confident that when it receives the report in three months, and with the security audit, the House will see that challenge being met.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: May I thank the Minister of State, the hon. Member of East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), for his courtesy and help in ensuring that I received this report in good time? The Secretary of State's statement is greatly appreciated.
When two prisoners in the custody of the Government are murdered that is a deeply shocking affair, and it is right and proper to have a full and thorough investigation. As the Secretary of State is aware, I would have preferred a full independent inquiry: I asked for that when Wright was murdered at the turn of the year.
As a result of the inquiry and the ensuing publicity, our constituents on the mainland have been surprised and appalled at the regime in the Maze. They were perhaps not aware of the special circumstances of that prison, which have rightly been explained by the Secretary of State and by Mr. Narey. The most particular circumstance is that the prison officers and their families live in the community and are under constant threat. I associate myself with the Secretary of State's remarks about those deeply brave and courageous men and women, who are doing jobs that most of us would not be prepared to do.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Narey report is an interim report? It has made some initial recommendations that, on first glance, the Secretary of State is right to implement. However, more needs to be done. Sir David Ramsbotham, the chief inspector of prisons, is looking into life at the Maze and will report soon. I realise that there may be security implications, but will the Secretary of State publish that report in full if possible? Will she also make a statement to the House shortly after it is published?
The Secretary of State has my absolute assurance, on behalf of the Opposition, that, we are seeking, albeit with the benefit of hindsight, like everyone else, to ensure a better and more productive regime in the Maze. We are not looking for scapegoats or to blame others. We shall assist her to improve the regime in the Maze so that the dreadful murders and other events that have occurred will not be repeated.

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Member for his comments. I agree with him that the murders were deeply shocking, and no one wants such acts to be repeated.
I was aware that an independent inquiry was the hon. Gentleman's desired outcome. When I decided whether to instigate a report or an inquiry, I considered speed. An inquiry would have taken much longer, and I believed that action should be taken quickly. I also considered decisions by previous Governments. In the past 15 years, during which there were two murders at the Crumlin road gaol, there was no independent inquiry. I decided that the method chosen would allow a thorough investigation with a specific date for completion and recommendations for implementation.
The hon. Gentleman is correct that the report by Sir David Ramsbotham has a wider remit: we widened it after the murder of Mr. Keys. I look forward to the publication of that report in the near future, with, as he rightly said, the proviso that there are no security implications. We also had to take security into account for the Narey report, and I am pleased that we were able to publish it in full. Although Sir David Ramsbotham's report is more extensive, it is the usual inspection, so it would not normally be brought before the House, but I hear what the hon. Gentleman says.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have every sympathy with the prison officers of Northern Ireland. Anyone with any knowledge of prisons—military or civilian—in parliamentary democracies knows that accommodations must be made between staff and prisoners; but why are those prisoners allowed to adorn their living quarters with flagrantly offensive murals? Moreover, is it true that they have unhindered access to mobile phones?

Marjorie Mowlam: As my hon. Friend said at the outset, a balance is needed between security and the safety of prison staff, and the necessary judgments must be made to achieve that balance.
The murals are in all the blocks. All the different groups have them on the walls, and—as my hon. Friend knows better than most—they are to be found in the communities as well. Let me put my view succinctly: I believe that the amount of force that would be required to remove them permanently is disproportionate to the extent of the problem. That is the decision we made, and, as hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware, the murals have been there for many years.
Many allegations are made in the papers about behaviour in the Maze, most of them without foundation. Prisoners are not permitted to have mobile phones. Mobile phones that have been found have been seized, and there

is no evidence to suggest that they are currently being used. Prisoners do, however, have phonecards, and there are telephone boxes on each wing.

Mr. Phil Willis: The Liberal Democrats also support the publication of the Narey report. Although it will take some time for us to study all 59 recommendations, I hope that the Secretary of State will accept our support for a very challenging and sensitive document.
Can the Secretary of State assure the House that she will seek the views of the prison officers and line managers who will have to implement the proposals? It is crucial that we do not just make statements rightly praising the courage of the prison officers, but ensure that those who must implement the proposals are given the utmost support and consideration.
Prison safety remains a concern, especially after the appalling murder of David Keys. There is currently a 23-hour protective lockdown each day for LVF prisoners. We note what the Secretary of State said about Sir David Ramsbotham's investigation, but does she accept that the sooner that investigation is finished and a statement is made to the House, the sooner we shall be able to get on with the job of satisfying not only the public in Northern Ireland, but the prisoner community?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his party's support. I appreciate that Liberal Democrats will want to examine the 59 recommendations in the report; if they want to make further points after doing so, we shall be happy to consider them.
Question accordingly agreed to. I certainly assure the House that the implementation of the recommendations will rely on sensible discussion and negotiation with staff, line managers and members of the Prison Officers Associations. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), the Minister with responsibility for security, met members of the POA this week in preparation for the publication of the Narey report, and I shall be meeting them next week or the week after to discuss the details.
I echo the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Ramsbotham report. Of course we want to get it into the public domain as quickly as possible. The one thing that prisons need is stability; uncertainty and a lack of information are not helpful, as in so many other Northern Ireland matters. There was a slight delay in the publication of the Narey report, because we had sought legal advice in order not to inhibit the possibility of criminal prosecutions where they are pending. Similarly, there may be a slight delay in the publication of the Ramsbotham report, but it will be no longer than is absolutely necessary.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: May I first acknowledge the courtesy with which Martin Narey listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and me when we visited him, and may I thank the Secretary of State for giving us a preview of the report so that we were able to read it before coming here?
I am disappointed that the report does not deal with the fundamentals that I think it should have dealt with. Whatever superfluity of words the Secretary of State uses to divert attention from the shameful reality that the


Prison Service in Northern Ireland operates on a prisoner self-regulatory basis, and however euphemistic the language of Martin Narey with his "regrettables" and "unfortunates", there is no escaping the fact that prison management in Northern Ireland falls far short of the justifiable expectation of the predominantly law-abiding society in Northern Ireland.
The Narey report and the Secretary of State's response are little short of a terrorists charter for paramilitaries to continue—[Interruption.] Listen for once. We have to live there. It is a terrorists charter for paramilitaries to continue to impose by violence and the threat of violence a lawless and undemocratic regime, not only inside our prisons but outside, as is admitted in the report.
Is not the Secretary of State's passive acceptance of this state of affairs so pitiful as to suggest that the Northern Ireland Office team is not fit for high office? When will it, after almost a year, begin to govern? When will it resist the bully-boy tactics of terrorists, in the way that the Prime Minister seems to have rejected the bully-boy tactics of Taoiseach Ahern over the past 24 or 48 hours? This is an inadequate response to murder and mayhem in our prisons. We can only hope that, not having had an independent inquiry, we can have something substantial from Sir David Ramsbotham when he carries out his inspection so that we can begin to get rid of the anarchy that pervades our prison system.

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He refers to the Prison Service as self-regulatory. I would say that of any prison—my hon. Friend the Minister of State uses that language. Yes, it is self-regulatory, in the sense that there needs to be communication between the prisoners and the prison management and officers, as there is in any prison in the United Kingdom. The only difference in relation to the Maze is the backdrop. There are 500 paramilitary prisoners in one place, and the difference is that those prisoners are willing to consider murdering each other and to consider threatening the lives of prison staff and their families, and they can bring some civil disobedience to the streets of Northern Ireland. Those three conditions do not necessarily apply in other prisons. With that backdrop, there will be what the hon. Gentleman calls self-regulation, but I call co-operation and understanding, which are needed for any prison to function.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Northern Ireland team is not fit for high office. I do not know whether he was referring to the politicians or to the civil servants. If he was referring to the politicians, that is a matter of his view and that is fine. On a difficult issue, Northern Ireland civil servants work very hard and do their utmost in difficult circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman's last point was about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. What they were trying to do last night was no different from what we need to do on so many problems in Northern Ireland, which is to seek some kind of accommodation and understanding, and to talk.

Mr. Tom King: Is the right hon. Lady aware that all who have shared in the responsibility in Northern Ireland will know that the problem of adequately containing the largest group of convicted terrorists in western Europe is challenge enough? Certainly, the House

would join warmly in supporting her tribute to all those working in the Prison Service and the Northern Ireland Office, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) did. Clearly, a balance must be struck in the interests of the wider community and in the interests of security.
While the House will study with great interest the many recommendations in the Narey report, I thought none so important as the emphasis on frequent and random searches, because it is one thing to contain prisoners, but it is quite another if prison officers are being asked to contain armed prisoners.

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his opening comments. I agree that a balance needs to be struck and that the overriding issue is the security of the wider community. In that sense, the Prison Service has been doing a good job since the tunnel under the Maze was discovered in March last year, during the previous Government's period in office. The recommendations made then dealt exactly with the points he has raised, and we were working on their implementation in October last year.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will my right hon. Friend say more about the treatment of remand prisoners? She said in her statement that no remand prisoner would be sent automatically to the Maze, but would be held back for assessment. Given the picture that she has painted of the Maze and its inmates, does she agree that it would be better for all remand prisoners to be sent to prisons other than the Maze—perhaps even on the mainland? Could she say a word or two about the form of the assessment of remand prisoners to ascertain whether they should be sent to the Maze?

Marjorie Mowlam: When my hon. Friend has a chance to look at the details of the report—that is not a criticism; he will not have had a chance to read the whole report—he will see that the treatment of remand prisoners is covered in some detail. There are positive recommendations which, no doubt, we will be able to implement speedily. Remand prisoners are not sent automatically to the Maze. They arrive at Maghaberry and if they ask to be transferred, they are transferred—the choice is left to them. The conditions are written down and given to them. One of the changes that could make a difference would be prisoners being given slightly longer to consider their position. In relation to Mr. Keys, he himself chose to go, sadly.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: While I acknowledge that the Maze is a very different and difficult prison to run, can it not be argued—with the advantage of hindsight—that some well-intended, if mistaken, decisions have been made in the past? Is it not a matter of regret that Mr. Narey has ducked one central issue—that to achieve an acceptable level of security at the Maze, it is essential for prison officers to patrol residential areas as well as search them occasionally, sometimes by prior arrangement with the prisoners?

Marjorie Mowlam: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that hindsight is a wonderful thing, but, not having it at the time, previous Governments have adopted particular policies. Narey is a positive report because it looks to the


future. We could spend the next five or 10 minutes going over the past 15 years, but that would not help us or the hon. Gentleman. We must look at the gradual deterioration in the implementation of some of the regulations, and we must do what both Steele and Narey recommended—to begin to be sure that individual searches, cell searches or unit searches happen on a regular and random basis, and to be sure that the kind of checks that are needed are put in place. The hon. Gentleman and I would agree on that.

Ms Margaret Moran: Will my right hon. Friend accept the support of the majority of hon. Members for the actions that she has outlined to deal with the very difficult situation in the Maze? In particular, I welcome her comments about the security audit. She referred to the delay in the publication of the report. Will she expand on the reasons behind that?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for her opening comments. We were criticised by parts of the press for the delay in publication. There were two reasons for the delay. First, after receiving the report, we wanted to consider it in detail—my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride and I wanted to be sure that we could tell the House that we could implement all 59 recommendations. We are now sure that we can, and the security audit and the report in three months will show that we have done so. Secondly—I did not know this before—such reports have to be checked to ensure that no difficulty will be caused to criminal cases being brought against people accused of murder, and it took time for the report to be considered by another Department.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Northern Ireland Prison Service clearly has an extremely difficult job—that is accepted on both sides of the House. Is the Secretary of State aware that people on both sides of the Irish sea—in Northern Ireland and here—are deeply concerned about the regime at the Maze prison, on which the report by Sir David Ramsbotham may, in due course, shed more light? Is not it wrong that she and even my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who is no longer in his place, have described as paramilitaries or terrorists people who are, in fact, no more than vicious, brutal criminals, and should be treated as such? The regime that they experience should reflect appropriately the vicious crimes that they have perpetrated.
I share some of the grave concerns expressed by the spokesman for the Ulster Unionist party, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), about the current regime. Does the right hon. Lady accept that the regime that operated in the 1980s, which she said was no longer acceptable, should be reconsidered, as it seemed to be rather more effective than the current regime?

Marjorie Mowlam: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments, but there is a difference between rhetoric and reality, as those who have served in Labour and Conservative Governments know.

Mr. Harry Barnes: In the long run, will not the serious problems at the Maze be

solved only by successful outcomes of the peace process and the referendum? Is it not the duty of every hon. Member to ensure that the process is pushed forward, so that those problems can be tackled?

Marjorie Mowlam: Yes.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: With the benefit of hindsight, does the right hon. Lady consider that her visit to the Maze at Christmas contributed to good order and discipline in the prison and to a reduction in violence both inside and outside the prison, or does she think that it enhanced the status and authority of convicted criminals and terrorist godfathers?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. No, if I had thought that the visit would have either undermined the rule of law or enhanced the standing of people in the Maze, I would not have made it. I think that it was an extra step towards ensuring what was referred to in the previous question—the backdrop of a peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Martin Salter: On a scale of one to 100, where would my right hon. Friend place the recent contribution of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) towards a positive solution to the serious security problems that bedevil Northern Ireland?

Marjorie Mowlam: I do not think that it would be helpful to answer that question.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I have every sympathy with the right hon. Lady in having to deal with this fiendishly difficult problem, but does she agree that it would be sensible to assess the security profile of remand prisoners who choose to go to the Maze? In the case of Mr. David Keys, there was a clear likelihood that he would be under threat. Under such circumstances, do not the Prison Service, the military and the intelligence services have a duty, if necessary, to prevent such prisoners from going to the Maze?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. That is done at the moment, and, as a result of the Narey recommendations, the matter will be examined in more detail.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: As the Maze is in my constituency, I have followed the inquiry with great interest. Having glanced through Mr. Narey's report, I am concerned about getting at the real truth behind Billy Wright's murder and Liam Averill's escape. There are many inadequacies in the report.
I was alarmed to read that, in the course of his inquiry, Mr. Narey met officials from the Irish Government. One wonders what their role is in the management of prisons in Northern Ireland. I was amazed to find that he also met the OCs of all the paramilitary groups in the prison except the INLA. One wonders what their role was.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) spoke of the system of self-regulation in Northern Ireland's prisons. There can be no doubt that that system has contributed to two murders


and one escape in recent weeks; until it is changed, problems will continue and the Secretary of State will continue to say that she cannot guarantee the safety of prisoners. That is most regrettable. Control of the wings in the prisons has been given over to the paramilitary groupings, and that must be reversed.
It is regrettable that no individual or group of individuals has been brought to account for serious breaches of security that not only led to the two murders and the escape but contributed to a serious deterioration of the situation in Northern Ireland generally. Will the Secretary of State undertake to review again the management of the Prison Service in Northern Ireland? My constituents cannot have confidence in the service on the basis of the report.

Marjorie Mowlam: I shall answer those points in turn. If it was simply a question of heads rolling, that would be cheap and unrealistic and would not acknowledge the complexities and difficulties that exist in the Maze. There is a question of effective middle management, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is being investigated. The murder of Billy Wright is not covered in the report because it was not in its remit. An RUC investigation is being conducted into exactly that question.
The hon. Gentleman listed some people to whom Mr. Narey talked. He chose whom he talked to, and when people came to him to give evidence I presume that he listened to them. The hon. Gentleman also referred to self-regulation, as he called it, and to the murders that have taken place and why we cannot do better. At the risk of alienating my Scottish, Welsh and English colleagues, let me say that there have been two murders and one escape in the Maze in the past 14 years, while—

Mr. Maginnis: No, in the past month.

Marjorie Mowlam: Well, they may have happened in the past month, but they are the only ones in the past 14 years. In Scotland, there have been six murders in the past 10 years, and in England and Wales there have been 13 in the past six years. I am merely putting the matter in context.

Business of the House

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I would like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 6 APRIL—Opposition Day [10th Allotted Day].
Until about 7 pm, there will be a debate on trade union recognition, followed by a debate on the state of manufacturing industry. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
TUESDAY 7 APRIL—Second Reading of the National Lottery Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 8 APRIL—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will include the usual three-hour pre-recess debate.
That will be followed in the afternoon by Second Reading of the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords].
The House will then rise for the Easter recess.
The provisional business for the first week back after the Easter recess will be as follows:
MONDAY 20 APRIL—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Bank of England Bill.
Second Reading of the Data Protection Bill [Lords].
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 pm.
TUESDAY 21 APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Motion on section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act.
WEDNESDAY 22 APRIL—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Scotland Bill (first day).
THURSDAY 23 APRIL—Debate on the Royal Air Force on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Friday 24 April—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that, on Wednesday 8 April, there will be a debate on convergence of the telecommunications, media and information technology sectors in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
I do not anticipate being able to give further information next week about the business for the second week back after the recess, and I therefore do not intend to make a business statement next week unless the provisional business alters or I am able to give information about the week of 27 April. If I do give more information, I will do so on Wednesday of next week.
The House is being asked to take the Criminal Procedure (Intermediate Diets) (Scotland) Bill today as new business which was not announced last week. However, I said last week that the Government were looking to take urgent action on the problems that had arisen on the matter. As the official Opposition and, indeed, other parties, have acknowledged the need for the measure, we have been able to get agreement to take it in this unusual way. I am grateful for that, and thank those who helped to facilitate that action.

[Wednesday 8 April:

European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 13289/97, Convergence of the Telecommunications, Media and Information Technology Sectors. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 155-xiv and HC 155-xxiii (1997–98).]

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement, and for giving the House the provisional business for the week after the recess. She knows that several Members have been asking for debates on defence matters, so her announcement of a debate on the Royal Air Force is particularly welcome.
The right hon. Lady knows that we have been pressing for debates on statutory instrument 776 on lone parents and on statutory instrument 655 on nursery education. I hope that she can find time for such debates. Does she agree that it is time that we had a debate on foreign affairs now that we are halfway through the British presidency of the European Union? It would be of great value to the House if one could be arranged.
The right hon. Lady also knows that I have asked for a debate on the national health service in Government time at no fewer than six previous business questions. It is a matter of real concern that the Government continue to be unwilling to debate the NHS in their own time.
It is almost incredible that, although we have had eight statements on health policy, there has been no debate in Government time since the general election 10 months ago. I understand that the right hon. Lady has a great deal of business to cram into our working hours, and that she may not immediately be able to say when she might arrange for such a debate, but I hope that she will at least explain why the Government appear so reluctant to expose their health policies to examination in the House.
Can the right hon. Lady tell the House what precedent there is for the Government's handling of the introduction of national insurance changes in the other place? It appears that an amendment to the Social Security Bill in their Lordships' House has been used to introduce changes that were announced in the Budget, without any opportunity for debate or scrutiny in this House. Again, I understand that she may not be able to answer that point today, but if she cannot, I should be grateful if she could write to me to explain the precedent, and whether there has been an abuse of this House.
Many in the House and beyond will have been surprised to hear the Prime Minister yesterday give the job description of his press secretary as to "attack the Conservatives". I see from today's press briefing from Government sources that the press secretary's terms and conditions of employment have changed since the election. I think that we would all welcome the right hon. Lady's confirmation that that is so, and her reassurance that the House was informed of that change. When was it informed, and by what means?
Does the Leader of the House agree that it might be more open of the Government to re-title the post? If, as the Prime Minister was at pains to emphasise yesterday, Mr. Campbell is a political appointee, it is inappropriate for him to be called the Prime Minister's press secretary. I wonder whether it might be helpful and add to the gaiety of nations if the Press Gallery were to be asked to organise a competition among themselves to suggest a more fitting name.
I hope that, in her reply, the right hon. Lady will not provide us with an analogy with Sir Bernard Ingham, who began his distinguished professional career, as we all know, as an enthusiastic press officer for the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on why the sensitive issues of abortion and euthanasia are being treated differently in the Scotland Bill? The former is being reserved to the Westminster Parliament, and the latter devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Leader of the House may be willing to explain the distinction that the Government are drawing between the two, and whether the Government regard the issue of which Parliament should deal with those issues as one of conscience.

Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Lady has raised a number of points, and I shall try to answer them all. I am glad that she welcomes the defence debate. Some of her hon. Friends have been asking for such a debate for some time.
On the question of statutory instruments, the right hon. Lady will know that discussion always continues through the usual channels, and that it is on that basis that we decide where matters should be debated. I accept her request for a foreign affairs debate as legitimate, and I hope that we shall be able to find some time for some more general debates on foreign affairs in the not too distant future, although, as she acknowledges, we have some legislation in the pipeline that we have to deal with.
As for health issues, the right hon. Lady—I suppose that I should be grateful to her—reminded the House that there had been eight statements. That proves the willingness of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to find a great deal of time to be accountable to the House.
The right hon. Lady asked for a debate in Government time. I have to remind her of the point that I made a few weeks ago: in the whole of the five years of the previous Parliament, the Conservative Government had only one health debate in Government time. We might be able to manage that. What happened then was that, when we wanted a health debate, we had one in Opposition time. That is one reason why we have Opposition days: they allow the Opposition to choose the debate.
On national insurance charges, it is true that amendments have been made to the Social Security Bill in the Lords. Those amendments must be in order, or they would not be debatable there. Those matters can, of course, be debated in this Chamber when the Bill comes back from the Lords for consideration of Lords amendments.
On the issue of the Prime Minister's official spokesman, I do not think that there is much need to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, except to welcome the right hon. Lady's enthusiasm for the gaiety of nations, as she called it. I am sure that the Press Gallery can and does have a great deal of entertainment making up names for people. I should point out that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's official spokesman said earlier this week that he hoped that everyone had not had a humour bypass. Perhaps the right hon. Lady has taken that to heart.
As for the Scotland Bill, euthanasia and abortion were dealt with this week, and I have nothing to add to what was said.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great anger in Leicester arising from this year's local government revenue settlement, which has led to a reduction in services and a council tax increase of 25 per cent.? Against that backcloth, can she arrange an early debate in the House, so that we can try to influence the Government on the future of local government financing before they make any firm decisions?

Mrs. Taylor: We had debates on the settlements for this year a couple of months ago. My hon. Friend is an experienced Member of Parliament, and I am sure that he will find opportunities to raise the matter, even though I cannot promise him the debate he wants.

Mr. Paul Tyler: We on the Liberal Democrat Benches would certainly support a debate on the future of local government finance, which would be of interest to all hon. Members on both sides of the House.
On the subject of statutory instruments, I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to early-day motion 1168.
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Council Tax Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 911), dated 30th March 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th March, be annulled.]
It deals with statutory instrument 911 on council tax benefit, and has already been endorsed by both the leadership of the Conservative party and my right hon. and hon. Friends. This is a subject that causes considerable concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House, so can she the right hon. Lady find time as soon as possible for a debate on that early-day motion?
The right hon. Lady chairs the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, and I know that she is using her best efforts to secure an early date for a debate on its recent reports. Will she redouble those efforts, because there is growing frustration—especially among more recent entrants into the House—at the lack of progress on the recommendations of that Committee? Can we have an early debate and some indication of the timetable for any necessary changes to our Standing Orders that may result?
Finally, last week, I put to the Leader of the House a question that I am afraid I made too specific: I asked whether she was able to give me any indication as to whether the rumours were true that business would be interrupted the following day by a statement on the future of the Rural Development Commission and the Countryside Commission. The right hon. Lady, quite rightly, said that there was no proposal to interrupt business. However, on Friday afternoon, a written answer was slipped out that dealt with precisely that matter.
That is an extremely important issue, and not only for the commissioners and all their staff who have served the nation well. The Rural Development Commission goes back to the days of Lloyd George, and the Countryside Commission has done a great job for the rural areas. They are important agencies, which have done a great job, so to slip out, at the end of Friday afternoon, an important

statement of that sort, with no opportunity for debate, is the worst possible example of the Government having learnt nothing from their predecessors. The previous Government used to do that, but we had hoped better of this Government.

Mrs. Taylor: I have noted that the Liberal Democrats would also like a debate on local government finance. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the statutory instrument, which will obviously be discussed through the usual channels. I have to point out to the Liberal Democrats' spokesman that today is their Opposition day, and, had they wanted to debate local government finance, they could have chosen that topic for today's debate.
It is true that the Modernisation Committee has produced four reports. We have had one full debate on the subject, and I am hoping that we shall be able to have another. We have been able to make further progress this week: yesterday's Bill was debated under a programme motion, which is another step in the right direction.
The hon. Gentleman moved quickly from modernisation to Lloyd George—I am not sure what we should read into that. I am glad that he acknowledged that the reply I gave him last week was accurate. I do not think that the written question was slipped out in any way, and I am glad that I was able to help the hon. Gentleman to obtain a copy of it last Friday. It was not slipped out—indeed, I should not be at all surprised if there had been a press release accompanying it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it ill behoves the Tories to be rabbiting on about having a debate on the subject of the press secretary to the Prime Minister, given the role played by Bernard Ingham, who was press secretary to Tony Benn and then become a complete turncoat and joined Margaret Thatcher? He was responsible for sacking a Cabinet Minister, John Biffen, who at the time was doing a pretty reasonable job as Leader of the House. So I do not think we should take any lessons from the Tories about that.
As for the statement about knocking Ministers' heads together, let me say this to my right hon. Friend. When you decide to accept patronage, a ministerial car and some extra money, you leave the Back Benches, and you leave the freedom of being able to speak your mind as often as you would like to. Collective responsibility provides not only liberties but restrictions. If people want to open their mouth as often as I do, they should come and sit next to me.

Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that, when the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) opens his mouth, he keeps within the procedures of the House. I have not actually heard him ask a question about what he wants next week, and it is too late now.

Mrs. Taylor: I think my hon. Friend was asking for a debate on the principle of collective responsibility. He outlined that principle so succinctly that there is no need for a debate.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I wonder whether the right hon. Lady is aware how fast the crisis in agriculture is growing. That was brought home to me when I heard that the Massey Ferguson factory just


outside my constituency was going on to a three-day week. Perhaps she is not aware that the Welsh Institute of Rural Studies estimates that 7,300 job losses can be attributed to the crisis, or that, at the weekend, Bernard Matthews announced that he was on the point of moving his poultry business to eastern Europe. Will she therefore give Government time for a debate on the impact of the strong pound on agriculture?

Mrs. Taylor: I do not believe that all the problems that the hon. Lady mentioned are the consequence of the strong pound. If she believes they are, she might seek to catch your eye during the debate on manufacturing industry, Madam Speaker, because it obviously has relevance to agriculture.

Mr. Harry Barnes: May we have a debate on the backdating of social security benefits? Some harsh limitations have been placed on backdating, in previous legislation by the previous Government and in the Social Security Bill that is passing through another place. The process by which social security claimants must make applications is complex. Sometimes they find themselves going down one road and then having to apply down another road later, perhaps missing out on considerable benefits in the process.

Mrs. Taylor: I believe that we would all sympathise with the point that my hon. Friend makes about the complexities of the system, which is among the issues that we shall always take into account during the review. I cannot, however, guarantee to find time to reopen issues on which the House has taken a decision.

Mr. John Bercow: Notwithstanding the rambling reminiscences of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will the Leader of the House consider seriously the express wish of Her Majesty's Opposition for a debate on the role of the Prime Minister's press spokesman? Does she agree that the analogy with Mr. Bernard Ingham is supremely inappropriate? Are we not considering a press spokesman who is supposed to offer advice but wishes to take executive decisions, and instructs Ministers what they should and should not do? Does the right hon. Lady agree that, if that is his preferred course, he should cut his salary in half, abandon his job and stand for election to the House?

Mr. Skinner: He is only a baby.

Mrs. Taylor: As my hon. Friend said, the hon. Gentleman is not terribly experienced in the House. He may like to suggest to Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen that, next time they have an Opposition day, they should choose a topic of that kind.

Mr. Brian White: Given that the Government's policy of promoting 60 per cent. of development on brown-field sites will require high-quality construction, given the concerns that have been expressed to Ministers about the warranty system and about the inspection system, and following the reply that she gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and

Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) last week, can the Leader of the House find time for a debate about housing standards and the construction of houses in the near future?

Mrs. Taylor: I recall the point being raised last week, and I know that some of my hon. Friends have concerns on that matter. It is impossible to provide Government time for such a debate. Last week, I suggested that it might be possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) and others to apply for an Adjournment debate. Perhaps I should mention at this point that the Wednesday morning debates are a useful opportunity for many Back Benchers to raise issues of that kind that affect their constituents; my hon. Friend might like to consider trying to catch your eye then, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Lady will be aware that I serve on the Modernisation Select Committee under her distinguished chairmanship. She will also be aware that, from time to time, I am inclined to display an independent tendency. I was most interested to learn earlier this week of the Labour party's extraordinary structure that allows Whips to vote one way on a single-line whip while the rest of the party is on a three-line whip. As I believe in independence in this place, will the right hon. Lady confirm whether the precedent that her Government set on that occasion during the passage of the Scotland Bill could be referred to the Modernisation Select Committee?

Mrs. Taylor: Opposition Whips will always be very interested in what the hon. Gentleman has to say about whipping and the rules that should apply. The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the vote the other night concerning abortion. Abortion has always been a matter of conscience in the Labour party, and there has always been a free vote on that issue. The vote earlier this week was not about abortion, but about devolution and whether abortion should be devolved. Hon. Members who had a problem with their conscience were allowed, with the permission of the Chief Whip, to seek to exercise their principles.

Mr. John Cryer: Could we have a debate in the near future about British sport? It has declined markedly in the past 20 years, partly because of the previous Government's destruction of local authority facilities and partly due to their destruction of industrial areas. Those areas provided room to play cricket and for, boxing, rugby and other sports. The problem of de-listing has also resurfaced, with Rupert Murdoch trying to get his grubby little fingers on every sporting event from the five nations rugby tournament to the national tiddlywinks championships.
If the Tories are so keen to debate the national health service, perhaps my right hon. Friend will consider holding that debate during Easter week. Plenty of Labour Members would attend, but I do not think that many of the gutless Opposition Members would be here.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend did not cover everything, but he had a good go. I understand why many people are concerned about the future of sport in this country, given some of the things that have happened in the past couple of decades. I am sure that my hon. Friend


welcomed the Government's announcement about the sale of playing fields, and the extra action that we have taken to assist in that respect.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is considering the recommendations regarding listed sports events. I think that my hon. Friend knows that, under the Broadcasting Act 1996, the Secretary of State is solely responsible for the list of protected events. He is taking significant steps to consult hon. Members—some of whom have been to see my right hon. Friend about the matter—and he intends to listen carefully to their advice. I am sure that all hon. Members have their own views about this issue, and my right hon. Friend is willing to listen to them. On that basis, I hope that he will reach the right decisions.
My hon. Friend suggests having a debate on the national health service during Easter week instead of the recess. I understand the pressure for extra parliamentary time, and the difficulties involved in fitting everything into the parliamentary programme. However, I believe that hon. Members are entitled to a recess—not least because some of them wish to work in their constituencies.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the right hon. Lady find time in the near future for a debate on the wider issue of civil service independence? That independence is highly respected and valued, not only by civil servants but by the British people whom they serve. That debate is necessitated not just by the Prime Minister's extraordinary statement yesterday that Alastair Campbell is a creature of new Labour, but by the recent sacking of several public information officers who were unwilling to embrace enthusiastically the new Labour manifesto. It is a serious point that should be discussed on the Floor of the House.

Mrs. Taylor: The independence of the civil service is an important principle. Some Opposition Members find it difficult to understand that civil servants do not represent their viewpoint. There was an attempt under the previous Government to make sure that the Government viewpoint was put, and some Opposition Members think that that viewpoint should continue, regardless of which Government are in power. Independence means exactly that: the civil service serves the Government of the day. In case the hon. Gentleman had not noticed, his party lost the last election.

Mr. David Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the death by explosion a few days ago at the age of about 200 of the Leicestershire deep mining industry, when the ventilation shaft at the Asfordby colliery was blown up by RJB Mining? Will she find time in an already crowded timetable to investigate the corrupt privatisation of the British coal industry? That has led to the loss of collieries like Asfordby, which has one third of Britain's clean coal reserves—1,000 million tonnes. Those have been for ever sterilised by that explosion.
Eight hundred million pounds of taxpayers' money has been invested in a project that could have secured the role of coal in power generation. Could my right hon. Friend find time to investigate why that pit was lost, in a carnival atmosphere generated by Richard Budge?

Mrs. Taylor: I can well understand the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend, in view of the impact of

that decision on his constituents. He is aware of the pressures on parliamentary time, and will understand why I cannot give him the debate he seeks. Perhaps he will consider the possibility of getting an Adjournment debate, or of contributing to next Wednesday's debate.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: First, may I support what the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) said about the importance of listed sports events? In the light of the confirmation given by the Leader of the House that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is listening on the issue, can we have an early debate after the Easter recess in Government time? The matter concerns many hon. Members of all parties, and many of us have already written to the Secretary of State about it.
Secondly, may I return briefly to the debate earlier this week, and the issue of the exception from reserved powers in relation to abortion? In the light of the right hon. Lady's earlier answer, in which she suggested that permission was given to two Government Whips to vote against the Government on the matter, it is extraordinary that many of her other colleagues were not informed that it was regarded by their Chief Whip as a free vote. In The Scotsman today, one Labour Member is reported to have said that he is livid about the matter, and others have complained that at no time were they told that it was a free vote on a matter of conscience.

Mrs. Taylor: I have nothing to add to what I said about the issue of abortion. The vote was about devolution, but there were some hon. Members who saw it as a conscience issue, and they sought the authorisation of the Chief Whip to vote as they did. That is the end of the matter.
On listed events, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is, as I said, trying to get the opinion of the House, and to allow hon. Members to tell him what their priorities are. I cannot promise an early debate on the matter, but if hon. Members take up my right hon. Friend's offer to listen to their views, they can make their views known in that way. It is questions to my right hon. Friend on the Monday that we return from the Easter recess.

Mr. Derek Twigg: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a number of weeks have passed since the publication of the report on the scrutiny of evidence about the Hillsborough disaster, and she will know that I have asked many times for a debate. Can she tell us whether we are close to finding time for one, and can she confirm that it is hoped that that debate will take place between Easter and Whit?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has raised this serious matter several times. I have expressed my sympathy with him in his desire for a debate, so that the families affected by that disaster can feel that every aspect has been discussed. I cannot give a date for such a debate today, but I am hopeful that we shall have a debate between Easter and Whitsun. He asked whether we were close to a debate, and that is as far as I can go at this stage: I believe that it might be possible to get a debate between Easter and Whitsun.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Will the Leader of the House consider arranging a debate on farming in


Government time as speedily as possible? The farming community is concerned that the Government do not appreciate the seriousness of the situation in the countryside.
The right hon. Lady will recall that one of the first actions of the Government was to abolish the regional panels. Those were panels of farmers and others, which used to give advice to Ministers on what was happening in different parts of the countryside. Those have gone, so Ministers no longer have that line of communication.
The fanning community will be surprised to learn that the Minister of Agriculture is to spend much of the Easter recess travelling through China. They would prefer him to travel through the United Kingdom to discover the state of British farming. Please may we have an early debate on the state of farming in the UK?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman says that Ministers do not have a full appreciation of problems. I reject that entirely. Perhaps Conservative Members do not have a full appreciation of the significant steps that have been taken by my right hon. Friend and his colleagues at MAFF, not least the extra aid to livestock producers and the agreement by the Agriculture Council on 16 March to lift the export ban on beef from Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend and his colleagues take matters very seriously, and they are entitled to some recognition of the progress that they have made.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Last October, we learned that the Lord Chancellor had decided not to proceed with a judicial appointments commission as set out in the 1994 Labour party policy document "Access to Justice". The Lord Chancellor said, however, that he would report to Parliament annually on the exercise of his powers to appoint judges. I recall him saying that it was his intention to present a report to Parliament in April.

Given the importance of the issue and the reservations expressed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House about the appointment of judges, is there not a powerful case for allocating time later this month to debate that report?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend, who has raised other requests at business questions, knows the pressure on time. I will consider what he said, but I cannot promise him a debate. It is questions to the relevant Minister on the Tuesday after we return from the Easter recess.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Leader of the House realise that the inadequacy of her answers to my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) makes it all the more necessary that, in her capacity as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, she should explain to the House next week how the Government's attitude towards whipping practices allows a three-line whip to be put on a vote, which hon. Members are not allowed to break, but which two Whips are allowed to break? How can she seriously maintain that Whips alone wanted to exercise their conscience, and that other hon. Members had the opportunity but chose not to do so?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening to what I said earlier; nor can he be aware of the remit of the Modernisation Committee, which has nothing to do with the whipping in the House.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Will my right hon. Friend do what she can to ensure that a copy of the Clarke Tilt report on the British film industry is placed in the Library and the Vote Office? That was promised a week ago, and it still has not happened.

Mrs. Taylor: I shall look into the matter, and try to remedy the situation.

Opposition Day

[4TH ALLOTTED DAY—SECOND PART]

International Arms Trade

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I beg to move,
That this House, mindful of the conclusions of the Scott Report, commends Her Majesty's Government for its efforts to obtain agreement for a European Union Code of Conduct on the arms trade; and urges Her Majesty's Government to ensure that any such code sets high common standards governing arms exports for all Member States, and, in particular, to insist that export guidelines are transparent, unambiguous and pay due regard to human rights.
A debate on the international arms trade is particularly timely today, for three distinct and important reasons. First, it is approximately two years since the publication of the Scott report. Secondly, only a few weeks ago, Britain was ready to go to war, if necessary, to eliminate Saddam Hussein's programmes of weapons of mass destruction. Thirdly, the Government are currently engaged, with the support, I hope, of all right-minded Members, in efforts to obtain an effective European code of conduct on the arms trade.
Mention of the Scott report allows us to remind ourselves of one or two features of that event. It is worth reminding ourselves that the central conclusion of the Scott report was that the Conservative Government deliberately failed to inform Parliament of Government policy on arms sales to Iraq. They survived the debate on the Scott report by one vote—as a result of persuading three Democratic Unionist Members to stay away and twisting the arm of Mr. Rupert Allason. One might think that that is hardly an expression of overall confidence in the House.
More than any episode, the arms-to-Iraq affair exposed the Tory Government for what they were. When the Leader of the Opposition goes on a circuit of the spa towns of Edwardian England saying to the collected membership of his party that the trouble was that the party allowed itself to be perceived as arrogant, the truth is that it was not perception but reality. The Conservative party was arrogant, and the Scott report underlined the extent of that arrogance and the degree of cynicism with which the Conservative Government regarded their responsibilities to Parliament.
In The Observer on 18 February 1996—about two years ago—the conclusion was reached that
Britain helped to give Iraq the machine tools and the technology to wage nuclear and chemical warfare.
We now know that Britain did more than that. There is now clear and credible evidence that Britain laid the foundations for not only the nuclear and chemical programmes but the biological weapons programme that was being pursued in Iraq. It was Iraq's possession of those weapons and anxiety about the threat of their use, or of their actual use, that was the cause of the United Kingdom's being willing to deploy armed forces in the Gulf and, if necessary, to put the lives of those men and women at risk to prevent Saddam Hussein from utilising these programmes.
Some of the details of the biological weapons programme are now well known. We know, for example, that British and Swiss companies exported to Iraq large quantities of the growth media in which biological weapons are cultivated. Between 1987 and 1988, 39 tonnes of growth media were exported by two companies. That was enough for Iraq to produce four tonnes of deadly bacteria. Exports of the media in such large quantities are highly unusual. Indeed, sales of growth media for sound medical reasons are usually counted in pounds and not tonnes.
In addition, Britain trained many of the key Iraqi scientists. The covert biological weapons research programme was directed by General Amer Saadi, who obtained a masters degree in chemistry from Oxford university, and Rihab Taha, who had a doctorate in microbiology from East Anglia university. The procurement of supplies was controlled by one Ahmed Murthada, a British-trained engineer who led Iraqi research into the warfare uses of ricin, a toxin that derives from castor beans.
We know that British support was not confined to training or the supply of ancillary materials. There is now evidence to show that there is an irresistible inference that some of the anthrax that Iraq obtained as the foundation of its programme originated in Britain. It has emerged that Iraq obtained much of its anthrax supply from a United States company—the American Type Culture Collection, which is known as ATCC—with a base in Rockville, Maryland.
Between 1985 and 1989, Iraq obtained at least 21 strains of anthrax from ATCC and about 15 other class III pathogens, the bacteria that pose an extreme risk to human health. It has not been reported that many of the anthrax strains were British. Extensive American investigative journalism has revealed that they had been sold to ATCC, notwithstanding the fact that the company was well known to be re-exporting pathogens without restraint, not least to Iraq.
It was pretty easy to obtain pathogens from ATCC in the 1980s. It was necessary to submit a written request on headed notepaper from a credible but not necessarily reputable institution—[HON. MEMBERS: "The House of Commons?"'] Those who suggest House of Commons paper are perhaps doing us less than justice. It was necessary to agree to responsibility for the receipt, handling, storage and use of the material, and then demonstrate in a short telephone conversation that one was scientifically literate. For the payment of a $78 fee, one could have access to deadly material. No more was required. It could hardly have been easier.
I have asked the Government recently in written questions whether any pathogens were exported direct to Iraq. I expected to receive confirmation that they were not, but in a written answer I have been told that the Department of Trade and Industry says that it has no way of telling whether any anthrax or other pathogens were exported direct to Iraq. Apparently no records are kept of destinations.
The DTI indicated that the remaining records of applications—there are records of applications but not of destinations—for licences to export to Iraq were in the Scott report. I doubt whether you will stay awake through the long hours of the night poring through the appendices to the Scott report, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if you do it


will be unhelpful and unrewarding. The appendices shed no light on any possible export of pathogens to Iraq. However, they raise other concerns about chemical weapons.
In the mid to late 1980s, Iraq made numerous attempts to purchase special chemicals from the United Kingdom, many of which are known as precursors—the vital ingredients for chemical weapons. Many of the export applications were blocked, but some were not.
In 1985, Iraq was able to import small quantities of chloroethanol and potassium fluoride, precursors for up to six different nerve gases. In 1989, an application was received for a licence to export phosphorus trichloride—a precursor to yet more nerve gas—but there is no record of whether that application was approved or refused. As far as we know, subsequent orders for these and other chemicals were refused, but the records attached to the Scott report are full of gaps. We have no way of knowing which chemicals were sold to Iraq or, more particularly, to what use they were put.
Recent events when UK forces were deployed to the Gulf—when their lives might have been at risk—show the price being paid for the failures of the Conservative Government in these matters. The country is entitled to say that we need protection against a recurrence. I think that the best protection against recurrence is domestic parliamentary scrutiny.
When the Foreign Secretary made his coruscating speech on the Scott report, one sentence summed up the strength and determination of what he had to say. He said:
Secrecy made this scandal possible."—[Official Report, 26 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 605.]
The damage caused by secrecy has been acknowledged by the Government in their White Paper on freedom of information, which was published at the end of last year. The opening line reads:
Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance … and defective decision-making.
A little later, on page 18, it states:
Commercial confidentiality must not be used as a cloak to deny the public right to know.
There is no reason in principle why Parliament should not exercise scrutiny over arms exports, or exports of dual-use technologies. It happens elsewhere. There is a system to that effect in Sweden—one of the most successful arms manufacturing countries. Commercial confidence does not appear to be breached.
If we can have parliamentary scrutiny of Government communications headquarters and the intelligence services, as we now have by a Committee whose members are drawn from both Houses of Parliament, surely we can have scrutiny of defence and defence-related equipment without any prejudice to the national interest.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman's flow. I agree with his point about parliamentary scrutiny. Does he accept that such scrutiny should also extend to information held by the UN weapons inspectorate in Iraq which, it is understood, has considerable knowledge of the individual companies that have, often in breach of the

sanctions policy, exported chemical and biological material and weaponry to Iraq—yet it has maintained silence under the cloak of commercial confidentiality?

Mr. Campbell: I certainly agree with that. The hon. Gentleman and I were both in the House when the Scott report was published and discussed. He will recall that my attitude to these matters is similar to his. Transparency is the best protection against such abuse.
To be effective in these matters, Governments cannot act alone. That is why our motion commends the proposal for a European code of conduct on the arms trade, and in particular the Government on their efforts to secure such an agreement during their presidency of the European Union.
The stated objective of the code is to
strengthen the exchange of information relevant to the export of conventional arms with the aim of setting high common standards for arms exports from all EU member states.
Those are laudable objectives but, unhappily, there is a gap between the present text and what I believe to be the essential standards that are required for an effective code. The preamble to the code states that member states are
committed to the maintenance of a strong defence industry".
I do not dispute that for a moment, but in a code of conduct of this kind there should surely be a balance, or an acknowledgement, that the security of all of us in the European Union depends on the protection of human rights, the rule of law and economic and social development, and that a strong defence industry should serve those aims.
The code also proposes measures for the exchange of information and consultation. It provides that member states have to notify one another when they refuse export licences, but gives no details of the information that has to be notified, or indeed the time frame in which it should take place. To be effective, notification must surely include the type of equipment refused a licence and the prospective destination and end user, and the information should be circulated in a prescribed period.
There is a more fundamental and serious omission—there is no provision in the code for countries to notify other countries of licences that are granted. The code requires a country to intimate if it is refused a licence, but there is no obligation to intimate if it has granted a licence. That provision should lie at the heart of a code with such laudable objectives.
The code also proposes export guidelines, but these are ambiguous and leave too much room for subjective interpretation. If there is any ambiguity about whether a prospective military export breaks the guidelines, there should be a presumption that the export will be denied. In the case of ambiguity, the only possible conclusion to reach is that that export should not be entitled to take place.
There are eight guidelines in the code. I shall address three in particular. The signatories bind themselves to take into account human rights and not to export equipment that might be used for internal repression. However, there is a qualification to that obligation. Indeed, it constitutes a loophole. It allows the export of repressive equipment
if the end-use is judged to be legitimate, such as protection of members of the security forces from violence".


Every state that has ever been guilty of repression will seize on that as a justification. If ever there were part of the code that defeated the code's objectives, it surely lies in that qualification.
Another guideline relates to regional security—there are references to regional security in the code—but the guidelines should be strengthened so that they state explicitly that arms exports will be denied where a proposed sale might have a destabilising effect on a region.
The code also talks about development. There should be an express presumption that arms exports will be denied to countries that spend more on the military than on health and education combined. There should be a presumption to deny exports that undermine the objectives of bilateral and multilateral aid.
There are additional measures that the code should embrace if it is to be effective. The code states that it is the duty of member states to "promote transparency" and the need to "harmonise export licensing procedures" is mentioned. Again, those are laudable objectives to which no one could object, but unhappily there are no measures to ensure that they are realised.
Parliamentary scrutiny, to which I have referred in a domestic context, should be embedded in a code that applies to member states of the European Union. All member states should be obliged to produce an annual report to their Parliaments of the arms export licences that have been granted or denied.
There should be a common system of end-use controls. End use is often the means by which transactions, which on the face of it are legitimate, are rendered illegitimate. These agreements should have the status of legally binding contracts and there should be a follow-up system to check that the end user is the one that was first proposed.
Brokering should be controlled. Member states should establish a central database of arms brokers. It should not be possible for people to create £100 companies with two £1 shares paid up and set themselves up in the United Kingdom, or anywhere else in the European Union, as arms brokers. If people want to practise that trade, they should be obliged to register so that we may know precisely who, in this dark and rather subterranean world, is active. It was perfectly plain that, throughout his inquiry, Lord Justice Scott was often thwarted because of inadequate details of some of the companies that were operating in this area.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: The hon. and learned Gentleman called for transparency in these matters. Would that extend to commissions? As he will know, in some arms exports, some 25 per cent. of the value of the export is siphoned off to commissions. That must cause him concern.

Mr. Campbell: I hope that it would cause all hon. Members concern. There are newer Members to whom the hon. Gentleman's point may have been more expressly directed than those present this afternoon. He is absolutely right. Transparency in these matters is essential.
The Council of Ministers of the European Union should review annually the code's implementation and make recommendations for its development or alteration. The results of any such review should be reported to national Parliaments and to the European Parliament for debate.
European Union states are among the leading arms exporters in the world. In 1996, they had 40 per cent. of the world market in arms exports. That entitles us to say that they have a special responsibility to promote restraint and transparency in the transfer of conventional arms and technologies for military use. The aim of setting high common standards for arms exports from all EU member states is one to which I hope all hon. Members find it easy to subscribe.
In our recent history we have seen the consequence of the indiscriminate export of defence and defence-related equipment. Nothing would cause the public more concern, apprehension and even anxiety than the knowledge that there might be a repeat of the circumstances that obtained during the Gulf war—that British forces might find themselves on the wrong end of equipment or of materials, the ability to manufacture which had been provided in a profligate and wholly unrestrained way by the previous Government.
I commend the code as a common EU action that is entirely worth while and much more likely to be effective on a collective rather than an individual basis. The Government deserve the support of the House in their efforts to ensure that such a code is effective and meets the laudable and praiseworthy objectives set out in its preamble.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): I am not sure whether I have been damned with faint praise or praised with faint damns, but I strongly welcome the motion tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I thank the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) for his courtesy in making me aware of one part of his speech to which I otherwise would not have been able to respond.
Clearly, the Government do not oppose the motion. We welcome the Liberal Democrats' support for our work on the EU code of conduct for arms exports. The proposals which we and the French have tabled will set genuinely high common standards for exports from all EU member states. In so doing, they represent a break from anything that has existed in this area in the past.
Let me set the EU code of conduct on arms sales in a wider context. It is an important measure but it is only one part of the story which the Government have to tell on the regulation of strategic exports. When the Government came to power we were determined to add an ethical dimension to British foreign policy. That, inevitably, has implications across the range of international relations, from greater readiness to raise human rights in bilateral dialogue to support for ethical trading standards.
When talking about ethical trading standards, it is inevitable that they should apply specifically to arms exports. The hon. and learned Gentleman was right when he said that we do not recoil from the idea that we have a strong defence industry. The industry's recent export performance, which has increased under the Government's tight export regime, is one of Britain's success stories. The International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates the United Kingdom's share of global arms exports in 1997 to be 22 per cent. of the global total, about half as much again as that of France and second only to that of the United States.
That is a tribute to the competitiveness of British industry. But it gives us—a point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman—a particular duty to manage arms


exports responsibly. We need to ensure that arms exports are in line with UK interests and that jobs and prosperity, although important, are not bought at the cost of human rights abuses or international instability.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Scott report which partly inspired the Government's policy. There can be no doubt that that report revealed a scandal at the heart of the previous Government. I hope that, with time, that will become the common framework within which Britain judges the matter.
We are also aware that that was not the only scandal at the time. There were other areas in which arms exports were at best lax and at worst simply unacceptable. We were, and are, determined to ensure that the situation described by the Scott report does not happen again.
In February 1997, on the first anniversary of the Scott report's publication, the then Labour Opposition committed themselves to a range of measures designed to achieve that. In our election manifesto we said that we would not permit the sale of arms to regimes which might use them for internal repression or international aggression.
On taking office, one of the Government's first foreign policy priorities was to put that commitment into practice. We initiated a review of the criteria used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms and dual-use goods. In July last year, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced the outcome of that, which was that the new criteria would give full weight to the UK's economic, commercial and financial interests. The Government are keenly aware of those.
The defence industry is a strategic part of the UK's economic base. It supports more than 400,000 jobs. Its ability to export is crucial to the viability of the defence industry and to the preservation of those benefits. Defence exports help the national balance of payments and reduce the unit cost of equipment for UK forces. They can also contribute to security and stability by helping to strengthen bilateral and collective defence relationships.
But the criteria—this is the important point about balance—also deliver in full on earlier commitments by stating that licences will be refused where there is a clearly identifiable risk that proposed exports might be used for internal repression, aggressively against another country, or to assert by force a territorial claim. Those are important changes in previous criteria and an important step forward in ensuring that Britain can claim to be staking out a position that balances national interest in terms of jobs and defence with national interest in terms of the promotion of human rights.
On the same day that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced the new criteria for arms exports, he also announced another important step forward—a ban on the export or trans-shipment from the UK of weapons of torture, including such choice items as electric-shock batons and shields, stun guns, gang chains, leg irons, shackles and electric-shock belts. There is clear evidence that such equipment has been used to inflict torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment on our fellow citizens in the world. Thus, another of our pre-election commitments was fulfilled by my right hon. Friend.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: A firm in my constituency was involved in the sale of weapons of

torture, allowing their manufacture to go on in Mexico while the paperwork was done in Britain. How might the Government be able to tackle such a problem?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend raises a genuinely important point. As with the EU code of practice on conventional arms exports, we are trying initially to work towards a European framework for the banning of sales and exports of weapons of torture, but it is our ambition to internationalise those processes. My hon. Friend may be more aware than I am of the state of legal proceedings in the case to which she refers. I do not know what stage it has reached in the Scottish judicial process, but such prosecutions should have the support of the House. We are considering ways of preventing third-country traffic and the use by British firms of offshore activities as a means of avoiding the impact of British legislation. My hon. Friend will probably recognise that there are serious legal difficulties in enacting such a frame of reference, but she raises an important point.
Similarly, the Labour Government quickly delivered on their commitment to ban the export of anti-personnel land mines. Britain was among the first to sign the Ottawa convention banning anti-personnel land mines internationally. As soon as the parliamentary schedule allows, we aim to introduce legislation that will allow us to ratify the convention.
Having spoken of national controls, I now want to turn to the reasons why the EU code of conduct represents a significant step forward. I note the points raised by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, but he will appreciate that, in trying to break new ground and internationalise a process for the first time, inevitably we have to work at a pace that is acceptable to all our partners and allies.
Our primary concern was to make sure that national action would not prevent certain regimes from acquiring certain equipment, as we experienced when Britain was undercut by other countries. That would do our own industry a disservice but, more importantly, it does a fundamental disservice to the human rights values in the national code of conduct. Our intention to work for a European code was another of our February 1997 policy pledges and it was reconfirmed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he announced the new criteria.
Progress has been excellent. We started off by talking to the French. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife referred to the size of the European market, which accounts for some 40 per cent. of global exports. However, Britain and France account for some 80 per cent. of European exports. As nearly one third of global exports are from Britain and France, the House will understand the logic of beginning the process by talking to the French.
We have received enthusiastic responses from the rest of our European partners and that has been important in generating the will to take the process forward. We have been able to agree on a joint draft text with the French, and it is now being circulated among our other European partners. It is still our aim to achieve agreement during the United Kingdom presidency.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I am delighted that the code of practice has received a positive


response from other European Union countries and I congratulate the Government on promoting it. However, certain loopholes have been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), among others. Even if the code is signed, will my hon. Friend, together with our European partners, ensure that there will be an on-going process so that those and any future loopholes can be closed?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of the specific point to which the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife and my hon. Friend referred, but we do not believe that it is a loophole as we find it acceptable to provide protection for security forces. However, the sale of certain equipment is acceptable only when it does not infringe the more important criterion that the equipment is not used for the purpose of internal repression. We do not believe that internal repression should be permitted to pursue what might be described as legitimate security operations. We take the opposite view—that legitimate security operations should not take place if they involve internal repression. Our national criteria upon which the European code is based allow for no such loopholes. We shall always look at the form of words and the practice to see whether improvements are required, but it is not our view that there is such a loophole.

Mr. Corbyn: I am glad that my hon. Friend has reached this point. Does he believe that the EU code, when it is fully operational, will prevent Britain from selling arms to Turkey? After all, we provide 10 per cent. of Turkey's armaments. Does my hon. Friend accept that the Turkish army is waging a civil war against the Kurdish people in eastern Turkey and that the most appalling violations of human rights are taking place using equipment manufactured and sold by Britain and almost every other EU country? Does he accept that an arms embargo on Turkey would have a dramatic effect on improving human rights there?

Mr. Lloyd: Neither the national code nor the European code introduces the concept of arms embargoes. As my hon. Friend will be aware, arms embargoes apply to certain countries. For example, the United Nations Security Council recently announced a global ban on arms sales to the former Yugoslavia.
The EU code would not provide a blanket ban. However, it would make our national framework operate on an EU-wide basis that would prevent the sale of arms to any country that fell foul of the criteria in respect of internal repression or external aggression. That is a test which, properly brought to bear, has a material impact on the sale of arms. It already has an impact on the way in which Britain has been conducting such affairs internationally and it will have the same impact at a European level.
The code that will operate at a European level is an elaboration of the common criteria agreed in 1991 and 1992, in line with UK national criteria that are already well defined and well understood. It is also designed to prevent undercutting—the specific point raised by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife. It includes a consultation mechanism providing for partners to circulate to other partners information about denials of export licences and requires a partner to consult the denying partner before deciding whether to issue an

export licence for essentially the same goods to the same client. That will bring pressure to bear to prevent undercutting in arms sales that has allowed would-be purchasers to shop around. It gives European defence sales new and increased strength.
Agreement on the code will be a major step forward in the effective international regulation of arms exports. The consultation mechanism that we have proposed breaks significant new ground. Never before has such a mechanism been applied to conventional arms exports and the Government deserve credit for initiating work on the code and pursuing it so vigorously.
Agreement on the code, however, is not the be all and end all. Many complex issues such as strengthening end-use controls cannot adequately be addressed in a document such as the code. We are continuing to work on them at national level as it is important that we get our national framework right. They arise out of the Scott inquiry and, as the House knows, we have not yet received its final report. We want to take those matters forward in international forums. No one is pretending that an EU code of conduct is the final wisdom. We want to internationalise all the processes in which we are engaged and include such issues as end-use control in that European framework. When we have experience of how the code works in practice, we shall to consider what further measures are needed to improve its operation.
We are continuing to work on issues wider than the European framework. A good example is what we are doing in respect of the Wassenaar arrangement on export controls for conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies. That international framework has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the promotion of responsibility and transparency in transfers of arms and dual-use equipment.
The United Kingdom has been at the forefront of efforts to develop the Wassenaar arrangement so that it can fulfil its potential. We continue to press for an expansion of the reporting categories for conventional arms transfers and we have volunteered to notify export licences denied on grounds of regional stability. Regional stability is an important criterion. It is a totally open reporting system and, in one case, we have already made such information available. We have played a leading role in work on what makes transfers destabilising. As a result, we have firmly established the United Kingdom as one of the most constructive and active players within the Wassenaar arrangement.
The United Kingdom remains determined to strengthen the UN register of conventional arms. That is not an easy process; last year, the UN panel of experts produced a disappointing report, although we endorsed it because we wanted to build on the consensus. The United Kingdom will continue to work individually and with European Union partners to persuade more countries to contribute to the register and to broaden the categories of weapons covered.
The biggest issue on which we want to make progress is illicit trafficking, especially in small arms and light weapons, which were the dominant weapons in virtually all the 49 large-scale conflicts that took place in 1995—the most recent reference point. It is estimated that over 55 per cent. of small arms are traded illicitly, and are often recirculated from one conflict to another. In southern


Africa in particular, there is no doubt that weapons were passed from one country to another and used in different conflicts at great human cost.
Graca Machel, widow of the former President of Mozambique, has campaigned on a range of issues, especially illicit arms. She recently told me that the effects of the glut of cheap, easily available small arms have been devastating, not only on her country, but throughout huge parts of the African continent and worldwide.
We are determined to play a role in the fight against small arms proliferation and illicit trafficking, and during our presidency of the EU we have taken forward vigorously work under the EU programme to combat illicit trafficking in conventional arms. The programme could achieve progress for the world.
In February, Britain hosted an international conference on the problems of arms trafficking within and into the EU. The United Kingdom believes that, outside the EU, the programme should focus initially on southern Africa. In May, the Department for International Development will fund a seminar in South Africa that will be run by Saferworld, a British non-governmental organisation, in co-operation with a South African NGO. It should identify practical ways of helping affected regions and, we hope, produce project ideas for funding by donors.
We are also supporting work outside the EU programme. We have previously expressed support for the work of the Government of Mali to secure a moratorium on the import, export and production of light weapons in the Sahara-Sahel region, and are putting money into the project.
At a conference in Oslo yesterday, £300,000 was pledged on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development to the United Nations Development Programme project to co-ordinate and assist security development for the implementation of the moratorium once it is agreed. Those are practical steps.
The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife spoke about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programmes. The House was rapt in its attention to recent events, and there can be no doubt about the British Government's present commitment to ensure that the UN inspection system works. We demand the destruction of Iraq's capacity to deliver weapons of mass destruction of any kind—nuclear, biological or chemical.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to ask how those programmes came about. He asked about a number of issues, but I cannot give him answers because events took place under the previous Government—we are as tied as Scott was in pursuing them. We must ensure that we move to a regime that stops such events happening again and staining the honour of this nation. That can be achieved in a number of ways—for example, by examining controls of dual-use technology. I shall look carefully into the transfer of equipment to the American Type Culture Collection. We have made inquiries, but I hope that he will forgive me for saying that there was not enough time to provide a substantive answer. We will look into the matter.
The control of dual-use technology is an important and difficult issue, but although national controls are important, we can do better. The Government are

determined to make progress on a convention for biological weapons; it would mirror the convention for chemical weapons, which allows for challenge inspection, and could provide a framework within which biological weapons production would be controlled in the same way as chemical weapons production and would ensure that it could not take place. We are working on it, and already have agreement at EU level. We are determined to pursue the matter as far as we can and to bring to the world the benefits of a convention that would ban biological weapons.
I have discussed the matter with the Indian Government through their high commission, and we shall take every opportunity to move the agenda forward to rid the world of these vile chemical and biological weapons.
The handling of defence exports raises difficult questions for foreign, industrial and defence policy. Inevitably, passions are aroused, and there is controversy. Striking the right balance between protecting the United Kingdom's prosperity and ensuring that British exports can be used only for legitimate purposes is important to the Government, who have given a clear commitment that their foreign policy is based on humanitarian principles.
Britain can be proud of the record that we are establishing. I have outlined a record of achievement and of progress in significant areas on which we are building the basis for a much more rational and much more acceptable frame of reference for arms controls. The story, across the board, is of commitments achieved or in hand, and of progress and responsible management of our exports in line with the United Kingdom's interests.
There was a significant break with the past when the Government took power, and I hope that hon. Members will endorse it.

Mr. David Faber: I, too, congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on raising this matter. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him down every avenue, but I shall agree with him later in my speech on loopholes in the European code of conduct.
I shall continue the quotation from which the hon. and learned Member derived one line. The first paragraph of the declaration that forms part of the draft code of conduct states:
EU member states are committed to the maintenance of a strong defence industry which is a strategic part of their industrial base as well as their defence effort. They recognise that defence exports can contribute to international stability by strengthening bilateral and collective defence relationships in accordance with the inherent right of self defence recognised by the UN Charter.
I endorse those views.
Article 51 of the UN charter clearly states the right of all nations to self-defence, and Conservative Members respect the right of other countries, as sovereign states, to protect their independence and exercise their right to self-defence. That is why I believe that a properly regulated arms trade is entirely legitimate. The responsible exporting of defence equipment to our friends and to our allies makes an important contribution to world peace and stability. It deters the expansionist aspirations of unfriendly and aggressive regimes.
As we have heard from the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife and the Minister, the latest instance of the need for defence equipment was during the recent


United Nations operation, which was reinforced so well by British forces in the Gulf and elsewhere, to secure Saddam Hussein's agreement over weapons inspections in Iraq. Hon. Members saw only a few weeks ago the impressive range of military technologies that is at the disposal of our troops in the Gulf. It is a tribute to them and to the British defence industry that they were and remain so well prepared for military action.
Britain's defence industry is a success story. It is the second largest exporter in the world—second only to the United States. It takes the largest world market share of any British industry, and supports more than 415,000 jobs, 140,000 of which are directly dependent on defence exports.
The industry is the biggest contributor from exports to the Treasury—70 per cent. of defence production is for the export market.
In 1995, against stiff competition, the United Kingdom won export contracts worth some £5 billion, and in 1997 the figure rose to £5.5 billion, a record of which we can be justly proud. The value of our exports means that the cost of equipment for UK forces is reduced, and that the nation's essential technology base is secured. Most of the equipment supplied to Britain's armed forces comes from Britain's defence industry. The Ministry of Defence has estimated that British arms exports save it £300 million a year on what it needs to buy.
That is the constructive view of the Ministry of Defence, but we sometimes wonder whether it is also the view of the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office. When the Foreign Secretary came to power, he initially tried to improve his standing in his party by refusing a couple of small export licences to Indonesia: a decision which apparently infuriated the President of the Board of Trade. Other Foreign Office attempts to restrict arms exports to Indonesia have been stopped by the Ministry of Defence. As a result, the Foreign Secretary has understandably directed his efforts towards Europe, and much has been made of his efforts to persuade our European partners to sign up to the code of conduct.
What does the Ministry of Defence make of these machinations at the Foreign Office? I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), has had to leave the Chamber, because it would have been interesting to hear from him. Only last month, the MOD issued a press release boasting of a 10 per cent. increase in Britain's arms exports, and published a Green Paper, "Defence Diversification: Getting the most out of defence technology", which contained proposals for a defence diversification agency. Has the Foreign Secretary had a chance to read it? Paragraph 3 states:
The Government said in its election manifesto: 'We support a strong UK defence industry, which is a strategic part of our industrial base as well as our defence effort."'
The Opposition agree with that. The Green Paper also states that the Government
believes in a strong defence against the new security challenges that face this country and its Allies in the post-Cold War world".
We agree with that, too. It says that whatever changes emerge as a result of the strategic defence review,
one underlying reality is that a strong defence will continue to require a strong defence industry.

Paragraph 5 states:
This country derives great benefits from a healthy defence industry—not only from being able to meet most of the equipment requirements of our own armed forces from domestic sources, but also from the wider industrial benefits including the economic and employment advantages that derive from the export of defence equipment.
The Minister of State touched on that at the end of his speech. I understand that that is also the view of the recognised organisations within the trade union movement.
Paragraph 10 of the Green Paper states:
However, it is widely recognised that the defence industries of Europe must restructure if they are to meet the fiercely competitive challenge posed by the very large corporations that have already formed as a result of a series of mergers of US defence contractors. The impact of this process on the UK defence industry is yet to be seen, but our defence industry is highly competitive and is in a strong position to play a leading role in the restructuring process.
The Government are right to be concerned. While we have 25 per cent. of the current world market, the United States, with an industry 10 times the size of ours, already has 38 per cent., and that is before it has begun to flex its muscles in the export market, having always relied heavily on its internal market.
What role does the Foreign Secretary envisage his ethical foreign policy will play in helping the Ministry of Defence and the defence industry to meet the growing competitive challenge from abroad? The Green Paper says that one of the roles of the new defence diversification agency will be to encourage
companies active in servicing defence needs … to exploit potential new opportunities for their products and technologies in the UK and overseas military and civil markets.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will do what he can to achieve that aim.
The Green Paper contains six half-page reports describing the success that arms manufacturers and the MOD's Defence Evaluation and Research Agency have had applying military technology to civilian uses. In fact, the entire Green Paper is one big advertisement for Britain's defence industry.
There is, therefore, conclusive proof that the Ministry of Defence has largely ignored the Foreign Secretary's push for a so-called ethical foreign policy, and that he has little influence in the Government and especially in Departments that should be working closely together on Foreign Office-related business. [Interruption.] The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), tut-tuts, but an article in The Spectator informed us last week that
George Robertson has gone completely native at Defence. He talks about 'his boys', and Robin Cook doesn't have a clue what's going on half the time, because the Foreign Office only knows what the MoD chooses to tell it.
This may be a good moment to mention the £2 billion arms deal that the Government are planning with South Africa, which we read about at the weekend. It is primarily for submarines, but is part of a wider arms deal involving aircraft, frigates, tanks and helicopters. Will the Minister confirm that the Government have agreed to repay the purchase price of the submarines—some £200 million—as "industrial participation"? Is that not a clear example of an arms-for-trade deal such as the Foreign Secretary opposed vociferously when he was in


opposition? Is this the same Foreign Secretary who said that aid or trade should never again become entangled with arms sales?
The Green Paper says that, within the new criteria to be used in considering arms export licence applications,
the responsible export of defence equipment will continue to bring benefit to the British economy.
In fact, little could be further from the truth. In reality, the Government have failed to process hundreds of export licence applications from British companies that are responding to perfectly legitimate orders from abroad, at a time when the Government's defence export service predicts that international demand will decline by 15 per cent. in the next two years. That is bad news for British business, most notably the defence industry.
The Select Committee on Defence heard only yesterday that the industry is gravely concerned that the policy reviews have created a backlog that is resulting in delays of up to nine months in some cases. That could allow foreign competitors to steal business that would otherwise have gone to British companies.
Export licences to export strategic goods are issued by the President of the Board of Trade: the export control organisation in the Department of Trade and Industry is the licensing authority. They are issued under part III of schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order, otherwise known as the "military list". The ECO either deals with applications direct or circulates them to other Departments with an interest—most notably, the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence or the Department for International Development.
I shall give the House an idea of the number of applications involved. Between 3 May 1997 and 6 March 1998, 6,918 applications were circulated to the Foreign Office, 8,673 to the Ministry of Defence and just 783 to the Department for International Development. That is a great number of potential orders for British manufacturers on which a great number of British jobs depend.
In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on 25 March, the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry confirmed that, on 6 February 1998, 1,586 applications were outstanding, some going back to 1 September 1998. The ECO measures its performance against two stated aims: to provide a substantive response to applications that are circulated to other Departments within 20 working days, and to provide a response within 10 working days to those that are dealt with internally by the DTI.
When the Government took office on 1 May, the ECO was successfully hitting those targets. A remarkable 97 per cent. of non-circulated applications were dealt with within the 10-day period, and 69 per cent. of circulated applications were dealt with within 20 days. Since the Government came to power, and particularly since the DTI has had to consider the criteria set out by the Foreign Secretary on 28 July, that record has plummeted. By 6 February—which is the end of the last four-week period for which the DTI has been able to give me figures—the success rate for non-circulated cases had fallen from 97 to 61 per cent., and for circulated applications from 69 to 52 per cent. In the previous month, the latter figure had been as low as 41 per cent.
That is a disgrace. It represents an administrative logjam of scandalous proportions, and is a kick in the teeth for exporters already under pressure from the high level of the pound, as presided over by the Government. That is not the fault of those working in the Departments, but they have been thrown into a state of administrative confusion by the so-called ethical dimension of the Foreign Secretary's new policy.
The greatest irony is that, according to the little evidence we have, there is no noticeable rise in the number of applications that have been turned down in that period. For all the Government's rhetoric, there has been virtually no change in the number of applications being refused since 1 May. It is not surprising that the Government refuse to publish the figures on the number of licences that have been refused. The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry was only too happy to publish figures of licences refused by the previous Government up to 1 May, but from now on, she tells us, rather grandly,
the Government will report annually on the state of strategic export controls and their application since 2 May."—[Official Report, 12 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 722.]
We can be sure that actual figures will be noticeable by their omission.
When I asked the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development how many applications they had recommended for refusal, I received a standard reply from all three, which included the sentence:
The advice that is given by these departments to DTI falls into the category of internal discussion and advice, the disclosure of which would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion and which is being withheld under exemption number 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information."—[Official Report, 27 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 310–11.]
How very convenient. So much for open government.
Slowly but surely, anecdotal evidence is being replaced by hard facts, as increasing numbers of companies find that they are missing out on legitimate orders. The Minister may recall the case raised recently by my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary, involving a British company that lost an order to its competitors in Scandinavia for the supply of blue helmets to UNHCR personnel in Kabul. That firm has received no further approaches for equipment from the UNHCR.
Perhaps the Minister can confirm that a small company was approached to supply four machine guns to a Spanish shipyard, which were in turn to be fitted to four patrol boats and then to be sold to the Colombian navy to fight the drug barons in that country. That involved a thorny ethical decision, to be sure; but did not the Minister refuse the application, only to be overruled by the Foreign Secretary?
How ironic it is that, only last night, the Foreign Secretary made a welcome statement about resources for mine clearance. The money is certainly welcome, but it would appear that United Kingdom companies will not be allowed to participate in the mine clearance campaign. Recently, because of the inordinate time that it took to process its application, one of the leading mine-clearing device producers in the country lost a substantial order for mine-clearing equipment to its principal Scandinavian competitor. More ironically still, its competitors in Sweden and Finland do not even have to apply for such a licence, as the machinery is dealt with under the heading of agricultural machinery. So much for a level playing field throughout Europe.
On the issue of licensing, I am sorry that the Minister was not able to enlighten us about when the promised White Paper—which we hope will lead to primary legislation to reform the 1939 legislation—will be published. There is clearly a will in the DTI to proceed with such legislation as soon as possible, but I believe that the Minister himself recently confirmed that there would be no legislation in the current Session. It would be helpful to have an indication of the timing.
Let me now deal with the proposed EU code of conduct, of which the Minister gave details. It was constantly referred to by the Foreign Secretary when his party was in opposition, and, as we have heard, is now a central plank of the Government's EU presidency. As has been said, we already have eight EU common criteria for arms exports, the first seven of which were agreed at the Luxembourg Council in June 1991; the eighth was added at Lisbon in 1992. The previous Government were instrumental in drawing them up, and always supported them.
Some say that the criteria are too lax. At the risk of delaying the House, let me remind hon. Members of some of their contents. They refer to:

"The respect of human rights in the country of final destination.
The internal situation in the country of final destination, as a function of the existence of tensions of internal armed conflicts.
The preservation of regional peace, security and stability.
The national security of the member states …
The behaviour of the buyer country with regard to the international community, as regards in particular its attitude to terrorism, the nature of its alliances, and respect for international law.
The existence of a risk that the equipment will be diverted within the buyer country or re-exported under undesirable conditions."
Those criteria are clear and forceful; the only way in which to improve them is to introduce a means of enforcement. We now have a new United Kingdom code, and we are to have a new European code as well. The Minister recently referred to developing the EU criteria, and today he described the new code as an elaboration of them.
In a written answer on 2 February, and again today, the hon. Gentleman made much of the so-called "no undercut" mechanism. Having read the draft code carefully, however, I must disagree with him, and agree strongly with what was said by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife. At the beginning of my speech, I quoted the first paragraph of the declaration by EU member states. Opposition Members heartily support the Government's commitment to a strong defence industry, and to countries' right to self-defence, but many outside the House must be bitterly disappointed, having been given the impression by the Government that the code would sound the death knell of the European defence industry.
The draft code is considerably weaker than the Minister has suggested when it comes to undercutting. The relevant part of paragraph D of the declaration states:
Before any member state grants a licence which has been denied by another member state for an essentially identical transaction within the last three years it will first consult the member State which issued the denial. If following consultations the member State nevertheless decides to grant a licence, it will notify the member State issuing the original denial giving a detailed explanation of its reasoning.

Although the code is supposed to introduce a common standard in the assessment of whether an arms export order should be processed, there is nothing in it to compel member states not to take up contracts previously turned down by others.
If a member state decides to undercut another, there will be a confidential bilateral meeting between those concerned. If the undercutting state decides to go ahead with the export contract, all it will have to do is confirm to the other state its reasons for so doing. Such a statement would remain confidential between the states concerned. Clearly, once a fellow member state has informed its partners of a decision to refuse a licence, it must then trust to the integrity of its partners. That is in stark contrast to what the Foreign Secretary told my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) on 10 February at Question Time. He said:
I assure the hon. Gentleman that if any country proposed to take up a contract that we had denied, we would pursue the matter through all 14 member states."—[Official Report, 10 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 127]
We might well do that, but there is no provision in the draft EU code for other states in Europe to do likewise. Indeed—ironically—if undercutting becomes commonplace, member states are less likely to turn down arms contracts in the first place.
No one doubts the integrity of our partners, but different countries have different priorities for their defence trade and national interests. France's defence industry is heavily state-subsidised, and we should bear in mind the fact that almost universal public condemnation of its decision to carry out nuclear tests did not stop it doing so.
As well as issues of transparency and lack of ambiguity—rightly mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife—the Liberal Democrat motion refers to human rights. As I said earlier, that issue featured strongly both in the last Government's guidelines and in the common criteria agreed in Luxembourg and Lisbon. The draft EU code, however, is ambiguous at best, and at worst weak. Paragraph 2 is full of caveats concerning internal repression. I will not repeat the section already mentioned by the Minister, but a later section states:
In some cases, the use of force by a government within its own borders does not constitute internal repression. The use of such force by governments is legitimate in some cases, e.g. to preserve law and order against terrorists or other criminals. However force may only be used in accordance with international human rights standards.
That is undoubtedly true, but, whether the Minister likes it or not, it is a loophole in what the Government claim they are trying to achieve.
Most astonishingly of all, the next section states:
The attitude of recipient states towards relevant human rights instruments should also be taken into account although non-adherence should not preclude countries from receiving arms.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government should not fight terrorism, or is he saying that, if they do, they should have no recourse to international law? In either case, the Government disagree fundamentally with the position of Her Majesty's Opposition.

Mr. Faber: Of course I am not saying that; I am saying exactly the opposite. I entirely agree that, in many


instances, it is necessary to sell such arms. As the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife pointed out, many countries have traditionally used that as an excuse, and will continue to do so. However, there is no instrument in the draft code of conduct to enforce the code, as such. Contrary to what the Minister says, it does not represent a step forward in terms of enforcement from the EU common criteria agreed in Luxembourg and Lisbon. The final statement that
non-adherence should not preclude countries from receiving arms
strikes me as an open invitation to many countries to use the excuse available to them.
I and, I am sure, the House look forward to the Foreign Secretary's report, which is due in the summer, on the impact of his policy on arms exports. I hope that it contains an apology to the hundreds of contractors whose exports have been stalled in the past few months, and I hope that he remembers to mention the exports to South Africa and Indonesia that he has approved. I hope that the Government and the Foreign Office, in particular, will give serious thought to a sensible balance between support for our own industry and the crucial need, agreed by all hon. Members, to uphold basic human rights throughout the world.

Ms Tess Kingham: In debating the international arms trade, it is important not to engage in sterile discussions about profit and loss statements, balance sheets and technicalities. We should consider not the recipients of arms—the military—but the civilians—the ordinary women, men and children who are most touched by the arms trade. Some 84 per cent. of all casualties are civilians, and they are the people on whom I should like the debate to focus.
I should make it clear at once that I am not a pacifist. I believe in a country's legitimate right to self-defence, and I have no difficulty with countries purchasing arms for such use. The area in which my constituency is situated relies greatly on the defence industry. I stress "defence industry". Before being elected to Parliament, I worked for 10 years for international aid agencies. Much of the work centred on areas in conflict, and I witnessed, or was told about, weapons that were sold by European countries and used not for defence but to wreak havoc and terror on civilian populations.
With War on Want in Mozambique, I saw people with their noses and lips cut off by the Renamo rebels who had shot, raped and looted, using weapons that had been supplied through South Africa and Europe. With Oxfam in El Salvador, I spoke to survivors of the Rio Sul Lempa massacre. That was a horrendous atrocity in which more than 200 women, children and old men, with nowhere to flee, were massacred on the banks of a river. I am told that, on that day, the water ran red. The El Salvador army was implicated in that massacre, and the previous British Government had given it military assistance. I was ashamed. European countries have continued to supply arms to Morocco, which illegally occupied Western Sahara in 1974 and used napalm on its people, attracting the condemnation of the international court and a UN resolution against the occupation. Those experiences motivated me to become involved in politics and today's debate is close to my heart.
I am well aware of the role of European countries and their arms export policies in conflicts such as those that I have outlined. In my work before I came to Parliament, I came to realise that, as the Minister has said, small arms do much damage throughout the world and cause much instability. The small arms industry is not of major economic significance to Europe. It has a low value and few jobs depend on it, but small arms cause devastation. I was in Albania for last year's elections, and at that time a rifle could be bought for $15. The proliferation of small arms makes that country volatile. I have recently returned from Rwanda. During the outbreak of genocide in 1994, people were killed with machetes and hoes but small arms were used to corral people, to contain them, before they were killed. It was mechanised, systematic murder.
It is estimated that 6,500 people a week are killed by small arms, and I welcome the Minister's statement about their control. There is no doubt that the irresponsible sale of arms to unscrupulous regimes costs civilian lives. It also takes a vast amount of public money to clear up the mess that is left by conflicts. There are currently more than 30 conflicts in the world, and the resulting damage consumes billions in international aid, and the donors include Britain. Such money is used for emergency relief, post-conflict reconstruction and peacekeeping. In 1995, the estimated cost of that was £2 billion.
There is no doubt that stricter controls on arms transfers are long overdue. That is why I am proud to be a Labour Member. My Government took action on this issue soon after they came to power. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced an ethical code for arms sales in July, just two months after Labour came to power. Our new ethical code is to staunch the flow of weapons to countries that use them for internal repression or external aggression. The Government are also committed to an EU code of conduct on arms transfers. The Minister outlined much of that code, which I welcome, but I want to make sure that it has teeth. I am reassured by the Minister's statement, but several areas must be addressed and tightened up if the code is to have an impact.
The first issue is parliamentary scrutiny. As we have heard, the Scott report concluded that, if exports to Iraq had been subject to such scrutiny, they would not have been approved. European Union countries should produce annual reports on arms sales, and we should press for a comprehensive EU register of arms.

Ms Julia Drown: Should annual reports cover just strategic arms exports or should they cover all arms exports? Furthermore, in examining such annual reports, should we not assess the whole cost of arms, including public investment in research and matters such as export credits and offsets, because the absence of such costs makes arms and defence appear much cheaper than they are?

Ms Kingham: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. Annual reports should be comprehensive, but I am sure that the Minister will respond to that. Perhaps we should look at those matters in more detail. I should like to see such reports and a register of arms being debated in the House, but Parliament should at least be notified of proposed exports to sensitive countries. As we have heard, that happens in Sweden and it does not seem to cause much difficulty in the parliamentary process there. Perhaps the matter could be investigated under freedom of information proposals.
The second area of major concern relates to end use and brokering. There is a major loophole and an urgent need for arms brokers to be subjected to national and European Union scrutiny. EU countries could establish a central database of arms brokers with all proposed transactions subject to licensing. The EU should also have a common system of legally binding procedures on end use. There are too many loopholes, some of which are to be found in the Channel Islands, and they must be closed.
Many arms deals by companies and individuals in the EU involve the transfer of arms via third countries. The weapons never pass through the EU. In 1994, the company Mil Tec in the Isle of Man sent arms from Israel and Albania to Rwanda. That was in defiance of a UN arms embargo and those weapons were used at a time of genocide when up to 1 million people were butchered. There was blatant contravention of the embargo. There must be an EU agreement on a standard mechanism for implementing EU, Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and United Nations arms embargoes because, at the moment, there is no such mechanism.
Much of the small arms trade is conducted outside the EU. The Minister has spoken about illegal trade so I need not cover that ground again. I was encouraged by his statements on that issue. I hope that the Government will press hard for an international code of conduct on arms transfers and that they will support the Arias initiative. We should also use our persuasive powers on countries that wish to join the EU or to enter into formal agreements with it so that they are responsible in their legal arms exports and will clamp down on the many illegal arms sales in their territories, especially those of small arms. The UK is the second major exporter of arms. We have already taken the lead in Europe by pushing for an EU code of conduct on arms, which I fully support.
With the memory of the victims of conflict whom I have seen and spoken to over the years ever fresh in my mind, I sincerely hope and believe that the new Labour Government will address the concerns that I have raised today. A strong and bold code of conduct on arms transfers will leave a legacy of hope and peace for millions around the world whose lives are blighted by the fear of conflict. As we enter a new millennium, I can think of nothing more appropriate or worth while for the Government to do.

Mr. Nick Harvey: I start by congratulating my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on the characteristically lucid and precise way in which he opened the debate on a subject which, for too many years, has been dark and shadowy in terms of parliamentary scrutiny. I agree entirely with him that we can and must recognise the change in attitude on the part of the British Government on the issues since the change in regime last May.
I join my hon. and learned Friend in paying tribute to the Foreign Secretary in coming forward with an ethical foreign policy—a worthwhile initiative, which will be judged over time by what it is able to achieve. The initiative was welcome and it struck a different tone and headed in a different direction from that to which we had become accustomed under the previous regime.
Government Back Benchers, such as the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham), can bring to the subject not only personal knowledge, but a different point of view

from those we have seen and heard from Government Back Benchers when the Conservatives were in power. A combination of the initiative on the part of the Foreign Secretary and Back Benchers with a different perspective will, over time, bring about a significant change from what we have seen in the past.
My hon. and learned Friend said that it was now two years since the Scott report was published and debated in this House. Anyone who was there that afternoon will recall clearly the drama of the occasion, and the fact that the Foreign Secretary—who was then in the Opposition—and my hon. and learned Friend had, I think, three hours in which to digest several volumes. None the less, they were able to pinpoint some key facts which, after two years, have not been treated as seriously as they should have been. I wish to refer to the matter of accountability to this House—a matter that I hope that the new Government and the Leader of the House will address. We must make changes to ensure that such things can never happen again.
For the benefit of those who were not here, and as a reminder to those who were, let me say that particular condemnation fell on the head of the former right hon. Member for Bristol, West, William Waldegrave, who was found by Scott and the inquiry to have wilfully misled this House. In particular, it was said that letters that he had written did not seem "to correspond with reality". His claim that the answers he had been giving to questions and in letters and public statements, in which he denied that any change in the Government policy's towards arms exports had taken place, was
so plainly inapposite as to be incapable of being sustained by serious argument.
This was
misleading to anyone who does not know the substance of the decision.
I recognise fully that Ministers in this Government are not likely to find themselves engaging in the same sort of activities, but it is a point of procedural and constitutional necessity that changes must be made to prevent any member of any Government ever getting involved in that sort of concealment and subterfuge.
As Members of Parliament, we depend on certain things, such as straight answers to parliamentary questions. Occasionally, one does not put the right question and one may not receive an informative answer, but one expects a straight answer. It was found that
answers to PQs, in both Houses of Parliament, failed to inform Parliament of the current state of Government policy … This failure was deliberate and was an inevitable result of the agreement between the three junior Ministers
who had set out on a policy of concealing from both Houses of Parliament the truth about what had been going on. There was specific condemnation of what they had done. The giving of answers to parliamentary questions, the report said,
is not simply a part of the game … played for the benefit of and under unexpressed rules understood by the Parliamentary players. The answers are also an important medium by which information about government and its activities is made available to the public. It is to be noticed that the respects in which the answers to the PQs about Government policy on defence exports to Iraq were inadequate and misleading were also respects in which some of the letters written in response to correspondence from members of the public were inadequate and misleading.
The report concluded:
In the circumstances, the Government statements made in 1989 and 1990 about policy on defence exports to Iraq consistently failed … to comply with the standard set by paragraph 27 of the Questions of Procedure for Ministers and, more important, failed to discharge the obligations imposed by the constitutional principle of Ministerial accountability.
That was a damning condemnation of the previous Government and members of it who, acting in deliberate and wilful collusion, had concealed from the House the details of what they were doing.

Mr. Paul Tyler: My hon. Friend is performing a helpful and important function for the House. Does he share my disappointment that, apart from a political eunuch—a Whip who cannot speak, or even listen to this attack—there is not a single Conservative Member in the Chamber? Is there some way that we can be sure that those very important lessons for the Conservative party are taken back to those who should be listening?

Mr. Harvey: I agree that it is shocking, but by no means surprising, that there are precious few Conservatives here to defend the record of the previous Government, but I hope that we shall be able to channel back to them the opinion of the House on their performance at that time.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife is known to have been a sportsman of some note, and it was characteristically sporting of him not to lay about the Conservative party because he felt that it was not here to answer. I shall show no such restraint. I have bitter recollections of a number of campaigns in which I have engaged over time on those matters which seem to bear out precisely the account of the Conservatives' activities that the Scott report highlighted.
I have been involved for some time in the campaign to prevent the export of Hawk aircraft to Indonesia. I listened with some astonishment to the words of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) on this point. [Interruption.] I welcome the hon. Gentleman's return to the Chamber. It was astonishing that he condemned the Government for the export of arms to Indonesia since the election last year. While I would not wish to query the validity of what he said, had I been wearing spectacles, I would have wiped them to check who was speaking. It was almost as astonishing as listening to Conservatives lambast the appointment of councillors to quangos or listening to the Conservatives' environment team complain about the construction of houses in the countryside—a policy that they started.

Mr. Faber: It is probably not the hon. Gentleman's glasses which need wiping—perhaps he needs to turn up his hearing aid. I pointed out that, when in opposition—with the notable exception of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who took a more pragmatic view—the Labour party was vigorously opposed to arms sales to Indonesia. Since they came to power, the Government have changed their mind and have endorsed the very same sales—presumably because they have access to the same information and security advice at the Foreign Office as we had when we were in government.

Mr. Harvey: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but two wrongs do not make a right. The new Government

are wrong to have sanctioned those sales of Hawk aircraft to Indonesia, and any other sales that have taken place. They have argued that the contractual position bequeathed to them by the Conservative party meant that it would have been extremely expensive to cancel the sales, but I still say that they should have done it.
The hon. Member for Westbury looked at the international competitive market in arms and argued that, if we did not get stuck in to make sure that we got our share, others would take the market away. That is exactly the same argument used centuries ago about slavery—we could not possibly afford to get out of the slave trade because others would take the market.
Sale of weapons to Indonesia cannot be justified. Under the Conservative Government, I attended meetings between representatives of Tapol, the campaign for human rights in Indonesia and East Timor, and Ministers from various Departments. The discussions were, frankly, farcical—despite being shown photographs of tanks that had been built in the midlands being used to quell crowds with Hawk aircraft flying overhead, Ministers argued that arms exported from Britain had not been used directly to suppress the citizens of Indonesia. Water cannon from this country have been used for the same purpose.
I could barely believe the discussions—the Ministers seemed supremely indifferent about whether it could be proven that British arms had been used. I believe that the fact that the regime was capable of such acts, and willing to use arms no matter where they had come from, renders Indonesia a market in which we should not be interested and to which we should not make any endeavour to sell.

Mr. Richard Allan: Is it not precisely such issues that cause so much concern about loopholes? The use of water cannon or armoured cars for crowd control could be justified on the ground of security force self-defence, which would enable such sales to continue.

Mr. Harvey: My hon. Friend is right. Such arguments can be constructed precisely to justify the circumstances that I have been describing. I echo the appeal of other hon. Members that the Government closely consider that point, perhaps giving the legitimate use of self-defence argument an alternative form of expression.
In reflecting on the record of the previous Government, one cannot help but recall the Pergau dam saga, in which the confusion between aid, trade and arms sales was exposed most horribly. We must take such issues into account in establishing whether the Government's ethical policy is a success.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does my hon. Friend remember that the decision about the Pergau dam was the subject of a successful application by a non-governmental organisation for judicial review in the High Court? Does that not reflect the bankruptcy of the previous Government's policy?

Mr. Harvey: It certainly does, and it emphasises the point that Parliament must have an effective means by which to consider those issues. I know that Governments have sometimes felt that some issues are so sensitive and confidential that it is not appropriate or possible for Parliament to discuss them, but I do not believe that that argument should be tolerated in those matters.
The Prime Minister has appointed a Committee comprising Members of both Houses of Parliament to scrutinise very sensitive issues of national security, so I believe that an equivalent mechanism can and must be found to consider arms sales. Moreover, as has been suggested, there must be detailed reports to Parliament.
During the previous Parliament, I tried on several occasions, as trade and industry spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, to pursue at oral questions the matter of the export of electric-shock batons. I can still hear the bland responses of Ministers, who said that my questions were irrelevant, impertinent and not a matter of legitimate interest. They claimed that nothing untoward had taken place, and refused to give informative answers or recognise the fact that Britain could in any way be condemned for its part in helping brutal regimes to suppress civilians.
I also recall that, in the Argentinian conflict, there was considerable evidence that British troops were confronted by enemies bearing arms that had come from the United Kingdom and France—such was the mess into which the previous Government's policies inevitably led us.
I do not pretend that the Foreign Secretary has set himself an easy task in mapping out an ethical policy. For example, all trading nations are guilty in their attitude towards China, which represents a huge, appetising and lucrative market. All those countries proceed with great caution, not wishing to offend China and imperil their chances of exploiting the future market—

Mr. Allan: Including newspaper proprietors.

Mr. Harvey: Most assuredly including newspaper proprietors. By treating the regime in China with kid gloves, we shall make it increasingly difficult to take a stand in the future. Unless we take a strong line at the outset, it will become more and more difficult, as contracts are signed and supply arrangements are made, to intervene.
When the period between 1979 and 1997 is written about in the history books, many facts that were hidden or misunderstood will begin to emerge. When people in this and other countries tell their stories, it will be not only Mr. William Waldegrave who will stand condemned, but many others, including prominent individuals from the Conservative regime. It will be seen that, for all its proud claims about its achievements, the Conservative party collectively acted in a very untoward way. The House and the public would not have wanted or approved of some of the diplomatic efforts to secure trading advantages for this country. There will be a stain on the Conservative party and this country when the world comes to understand what the previous Government presided over and, in some cases, actively colluded in, and gained profit from.
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife on raising this matter. We encourage the new Government in their efforts to build a meaningful ethical policy and in their work on the code of conduct. Serious warnings have been given, which we urge the Government to address. I hope that the message will be taken to the Leader of the House that our procedures need to be reformed, so that the House can, in some way, get to grips with those issues. We must ensure that no Government of any colour can carry on as the previous Government did—there must be a mechanism for preventing what went on then.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey). I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on what he said, and on choosing this subject for debate.
Times have assuredly changed. If such a debate had occurred a year ago, Conservative Ministers would have obfuscated, refused even to consider the human rights implications of arms sales, and become hysterical at any mention of the Scott report and sales of arms to Iraq, Iran or anywhere else.
I welcome the Government's initiative in stopping the export of weapons of torture, in moving so rapidly to eliminate anti-personnel land mines from the world stage, and in at least making a start down the road to the European Union code of conduct on arms sales. That code rightly mentions human rights, parliamentary scrutiny, end-use control, implementation of embargoes, brokering and legal status, all of which are important issues.
We should be slightly careful when we talk about controlling what happens to arms sales. I have a vivid memory of 11 September 1973, when British-built planes and Land Rovers and British-made equipment were used by the Chilean army to murder the elected President. All that equipment was sold to democratically elected Governments: the Christian Democrat Government of President Frei before 1970, and the Popular Unity Government of President Allende after that.
Those weapons would have fitted in with any of the criteria that we have discussed. The Chilean army was not willing to accept the democratic will of its people, and staged a coup that was successful in the sense that it murdered the President and ushered in a reign of terror that lasted for a very long time and cost the lives of very many people.
We must remember that arms are made to kill people, and if they are used to abuse human rights anywhere in the world, those who have made them and those who have caused them to be made and exported should consider their role carefully.
Last night, the House of Commons was invaded—in the nicest way possible—by more than 750 people who came to an Amnesty International-sponsored meeting on the situation in Algeria. The meeting was so successful that we had to organise two overflow rooms.
What is going on in Algeria is absolutely horrific. I do not pretend that an arms embargo on Algeria would solve the whole problem there, but the monumental arms sales have exacerbated the situation. Someone, somewhere along the line, promoted the sale of the weapons that are now being used in probably the most horrific conflict anywhere in the world. The percentage of Algeria's population that has been killed in the present conflict is higher than that of Britain's civilian population killed in the whole of the second world war, from 1939 to 1945.
On 8 March, we held a memorial meeting, in Committee Room 10, on the 10th anniversary of the chemical bombardment of Halabja. We showed a film, survivors spoke, and people described the continuing loss of life in Halabja as a result of the use of chemical and biological weapons. The film was deeply disturbing. We must recognise that the precursor chemicals that were used to manufacture the weapons, the manufacturing ability, the delivery systems and the aircraft, all came from western Europe.
Many Members of Parliament at the time constantly asked questions about those sales and exports, and about the denial that anything was going on. The United Nations inspection team in Iraq apparently knows the identity of all the companies that manufactured and exported fertiliser-making equipment, which much of the offending material was sold as before being used for the foul purposes to which it was put.
A veil of secrecy is being used to protect those companies and the people who work for them, but I am not sure that they should be protected. The people of Halabja were not protected: they are still dying, and the pollution continues. The least that we can do is to give what support we can to humanitarian and medical agencies that are trying to get help there to deal with the cancers and the many deaths from other causes.
Arms exports to Nigeria have gone on for a long time, despite the endless military coups, the abuse of democracy and the execution—more like state murder—of Ken Saro-Wiwa and other Ogoni activists. The United Nations seems none the less to condone and support Nigeria in a quasi-peacekeeping role elsewhere. We should be careful. The weapons embargo on Nigeria is important, but so is Nigeria's recognition, or lack of it, of human rights.
I have in front of me a picture with the caption "Butcher of Jakarta comes to London", inviting people to a protest rally this weekend. President Suharto is visiting Britain at the moment. I have before me an Amnesty International report on East Timor, where 200,000 people have been killed.
Time after time, when hon. Members raised the issue of the sale of Hawk aircraft, anti-personnel weaponry and other equipment, Tory Ministers told us that they were being used not for internal repression but for external defence. Where is the external threat to Indonesia? Suharto bought the weapons to continue the illegal occupation of East Timor. I am disappointed that the new Government cancelled only some of the export orders for Indonesia that were in train at the time of the general election.
The imposition of a total arms embargo on Indonesia would make a significant difference, but above all it would be seen as a signal to those who have lost friends and relatives in East Timor and are being overflown and bombed by Hawk aircraft that somebody, somewhere in the world, cares about them. It is all very well applauding Jose Ramos Horta and Bishop Belo and awarding them prizes, but if we carry on selling arms to the regime, what is it all for? They want not awards but peace and self-determination.
The situation in Turkey has not been good since the coup in 1980. There is brutal repression of trade unions and human rights organisations, with imprisonment and executions. A major conflict is taking place in Kurdistan, with aerial surveillance, bombardment, the rasing of villages and constant incursions into northern Iraq by the Turkish army.
Human rights abuses in Turkey are well documented, and, indeed, legion. The least we can do is examine the criteria that we apparently support on the sale of weaponry to other countries, and measure Turkey's record against them. Where are the democratic controls,

the parliamentary scrutiny, the respect for human rights? Where is the right of the Kurdish people to self-expression, let alone self-determination?
We are keen on banning arms sales to some countries because we are worried about human rights, but we seem perfectly happy, for other geopolitical or commercial reasons, to sell arms to other countries with an equally appalling record. For example, Saudi Arabia is a major purchaser of British arms and equipment, but there is not much discussion about it, even in the media, because we do not want to upset the oil barons of the middle east.
If we are to follow an ethical foreign policy, we must look in the long run at the whole industrial base of the arms trade. In promoting his ethical foreign policy immediately after the general election, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary probably understood very well that there would be tensions among the arms industry, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign Office and others.
The policy enabled those of us who are passionate in the interests of human rights at least to raise the subject, and that is important in itself, but I would prefer it if we could aim for the longer-term objective of ensuring that we have a proper arms conversion agency, to allow the brilliance and skill of those who manufacture weapons of mass destruction, high-quality aircraft and other military equipment to be put to use manufacturing goods for the benefit rather than the destruction of humankind.
We could not achieve a transfer of that entire manufacturing base overnight, but we have to start somewhere.

Ms Drown: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is some tension in the House, because there is much agreement today about the need for an ethical arms trade policy, but, when another debate comes up about jobs, hon. Members will defend jobs in the arms industry in their constituencies? Does he agree that, as a strong part of the new Government's developing policy, the first part of money released through defence diversification should go back into the areas concerned, so that the skilled people there can find jobs in more constructive areas of employment?

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend reads my mind. What brilliance; no one else can. Her point is important. I do not seek to make enemies or to criticise people who work in the arms industry. That is not my purpose, or that of anyone else concerned about human rights. I am concerned that a diversification agency should reduce Britain's dependence on arms manufacture and export. It must invest so that, instead of the market madness of the Tory Government, we examine rationally how to reduce the volume and value of the arms industry and its exports, and put the money into socially useful products.
The subsidy to the arms industry is enormous. About £5,000 per job is subsidised every year. The subsidy on exports is more than £300 million a year. The Export Credits Guarantee Department's exposure on arms exports is vast. Following the collapse of the south-east Asian tiger economies, I understand that £800 million is still unpaid by Indonesia. The figure is duplicated in many other countries.
The British taxpayer is to be asked to pay for the weapons that are going to be used to kill people in Indonesia and many other places. It is a ludicrous business


to depend on. If we are concerned about human rights, we cannot at the same time promote arms exports knowing full well that Governments such as Suharto's will use them against the poor people of East Timor and many other places.
Since the second world war, conflicts have arisen all over the globe. They were sometimes cold war conflicts by proxy, sometimes demands for self-determination, and often arguments about oil and natural resources. The common thread is that, in every one of those conflicts, in which 40 million people have died since 1945, someone along the line has made a great deal of money from the export of the weapons that helped to fuel them.
What always sticks in my mind is visiting a scrap metal yard in northern Iraq after the Iran-Iraq war. I walked around and saw the manufacturer's labels on the shell casings and aircraft remains, and thought of all the money made all over the world from that appalling and useless conflict in which 500,000 people on each side were killed. We pay that price in our conscience, but other people pay it with their lives as a result of the arms export industry and the competition of arms dealers around the world. Why not instead look ahead to something a bit bolder than the diversification agency proposed in the Green Paper, to a time when the skill and brilliance involved in producing arms produces goods that benefit humankind rather than killing it?

Dr. Jenny Tonge: It has been an interesting debate, but Her Majesty's Opposition are conspicuous by their absence. Earlier, they challenged the Leader of the House to give them time for debates on defence and foreign policy, but they cannot be bothered to turn up to a debate on the international arms trade. A plague on them.

Mr. Faber: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dr. Tonge: No, I will not, because I have very little time. The hon. Gentleman took more than enough time.
We had a detailed response from the Minister. There were a lot of words, but they must be matched by action. I urge him to more action and a few less words. I agree with the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) that there was a lot of rhetoric, and that nothing much seems to have changed yet. We shall see.
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham), my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), and, of course, the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) brought passion to the debate. We heard about the effects of the international arms trade.
We live in an unstable world, because the end of the cold war left us with a paradox. There is less threat, but also less peace. Of the major armed conflicts in the world today, not one is a classic war of one state against another. Typically, wars today are violent, and ethnically or religiously oriented. Almost all are in poor countries. For those embroiled in such conflicts, the dominant threat is not nuclear arsenals but small arms controlled by warlords, as so aptly noted by the hon. Member for Gloucester.
Civilians suffer 90 per cent. of casualties, of whom more than 40 per cent. are children, as the hon. Member for Gloucester and I saw illustrated vividly in Rwanda—

something we will never forget. Such violence, ethnic cleansing and mass rape undermine the values on which depend human relationships and respect for human rights. A little bit passion in the debate would have been appreciated.
As civilised nations with human rights, we call on the world to do something. However, those called upon to do something are the men and women in the military who once protected us from a single threat. I am grateful for that, as one of the generation that was protected and given a good life as a consequence. They are now called on for peacekeeping, and, more often, peace enforcement.
I hope that the defence review—which, it was promised, would be policy-led—reflects the strategic change, while recognising the continuing need for a well-equipped military. The hon. Member for Westbury was very hot on the importance of a strong defence industry.

Mr. Stephen Hesford: The hon. Lady mentioned the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber). Does she agree that speeches such as his make the Government's position very difficult, in an area which is already difficult? There was no support from Conservative Members for an ethical foreign policy. The Opposition said virtually nothing about human rights.

Dr. Tonge: I agree. I remind the hon. Member for Westbury that a strong defence industry that is good for the economy comes at the expense of the lives of women and children and the torture of people all over the world. In the next century, that cost must be taken into account.

Mr. Faber: Does the hon. Lady accept that most of my quotations in defence of the British defence industry were from last month's Government Green Paper?

Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out, but I stick to what I said about his remarks.
If we are to promote an ethical foreign policy, it must be backed by a code of conduct for arms sales, as ably argued by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). My first major concern is the matter of licences not being granted if there is a risk of arms being used for internal repression.
I still have no idea who or what decides what internal repression is. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain it. Baroness Chalker spoke in terms similar to the Government's about internal repression, but still licences are granted. Not much has changed. Since 1 May, there have been 22 to Indonesia, 16 to Kenya, 86 to Turkey, two to Algeria, and so on. That is why full parliamentary scrutiny of arms sales in advance is imperative.
Arms broking was also mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife and the hon. Member for Gloucester. It is essential that all EU residents and registered companies comply with the European policy on arms exports. We must stop the scandal of brokerage. The hon. Member for Gloucester told us about the scandal in Rwanda and Mil Tec's involvement. The issue must be cleared up and included in the policy.
On the subject of scrutiny in Parliament, I ask the Minister to consider carefully Sir Richard Scott's suggestion of a standing interdepartmental committee.


The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible at the same time for promoting and for restricting exports. The Scott report questioned whether the DTI should continue to be the licensing authority when the material reasons for refusing export licences were usually the preserve of other Departments such as the Department for International Development.
A standing committee would facilitate communication between the DTI, the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, and concerns could be raised. It would enable parliamentarians to scrutinise sensitive export licences in advance.
Several hon. Members mentioned annual reports, but they allow only retrospective debate after the exports have been licensed. In Sweden, a parliamentary committee scrutinises proposed exports to countries of concern in advance. Even the United States—the largest arms exporter—has a system of prior notification. As three former distinguished members of the armed forces said in a letter to The Times recently, Britain must have a more restrictive and transparent arms policy at the same time as it supports our armed forces and promotes an ethical foreign policy.
This year is the 50th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights. It is an opportunity for a global effort to work towards the new world order that western leaders declared after the end of the cold war, but which has evaded us. The horrors of recent years have proved that peace will not come by rhetoric alone. We are approaching a new century. As we led in the fight against dictators and repression in this century, Britain, along with her allies, must promote humanitarian principles and codes of conduct in the next. In a world of less threat, less peace, we must work for peace.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: With the leave of the House. This has been a fascinating debate in many ways. I have some sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) about the need for passion. I have just returned from Sierra Leone. I shall say this dispassionately, because if I say it emotionally it will be almost an abuse of emotion.
I saw pictures that almost defied description of the torture that had been meted out to the victims of the former junta. People had been beheaded or had their limbs torn off. I met survivors of torture. That is what war and brutality are all about, and that is, among other reasons, why we have to introduce ethical standards into all our debates on foreign policy and our relationship with our fellow human beings in this world.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park called for fewer words and more action. Perhaps she will forgive me for saying that a considerable amount of action is being taken. I shall give her some instances.
Even this debate about arms sales has to be put into the wider context of a world that moves away from the perception of conflict as the norm towards conflict prevention as a more rational way of going forward. Picking up the pieces after a conflict is always incredibly expensive and inefficient and can never recompense the

victims. In various areas, the Government are making progress, and in some areas we are doing precisely what I have described.
The hon. Lady described rape as an act of war. The Government are working hard to establish an international criminal court. Among the things that we want such a court to do is to accept that rape as a tactic of war will be seen as a war crime.

Dr. Tonge: Does the Minister accept that rape is an act of genocide, not only of war?

Mr. Lloyd: We are in danger of getting into a battle of semantics rather than a battle of practicalities. We want to ensure that the crime of rape as an act of war is penalised through the international criminal court and seen for what it is—an act of atrocious violation.
Those are practical steps forward. We are doing work in The Hague and in Arusha, where an international tribunal on events in Rwanda is being held. We are giving practical support to ensure that those two tribunals are able to provide a framework within which justice is seen to be part of the process of reconciliation. We are taking steps in Africa, where Britain is undertaking active training in peacekeeping to prevent the outbreak of conflict. We are taking part at the level of the United Nations in efforts to move things forward in a practical way to build a capacity to stop conflict breaking out. Those are practical steps, and they are important.
Britain ought to be proud that we are at the forefront of practical steps, and that we are part of moving this world on. The hon. Member for Richmond Park is right: passion is necessary in defence of the rights of those who get little by way of defence elsewhere, but it is in that context that we are making real and tangible progress in the context of arms sales. I have already explained to the House the practical steps that we are taking on illicit arms trafficking and international registration. Those are practical steps.
The European Union code of conduct is a practical step. It brings our European allies on board in a process that they have never previously undertaken collectively. Again, that is progress. That is why, sadly, the speech of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) was so sad and so churlish. After a new leader of the Conservative party has been elected and after time for reflection, it would have been enough to say, "We are genuinely sorry. What the previous Government did was an outrage. It was a disgrace and a stain on this nation." That would have been a sensible speech.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): He did not vote for the new leader.

Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps we have an old Tory here—proud of Scott, proud of the Pergau dam scandal, proud of all those stains on our national honour, which are now being washed away because Britain does not want that any more.
The hon. Member for Westbury talked about delays. When the Labour Government came to power, they inherited a system in which the previous Government did not care about arms sales, had no proper control system and asked no questions. Ministers took no decisions except the decision to sell.
Inevitably, when a new Government come to power determined to break with that past, the system creaks under the strain. We have had to rebuild the system. We have had to work with the very competent officials who are now making the system work. Yes, we inherited a system that produced delays. We are now getting those delays out of the system, but the responsibility falls on the previous Government. That is widely understood in the industry, which recognises that the balance is now being got right.
It is astonishing that the hon. Member for Westbury wants us to apply a system in which the delays would not occur. He wants us to go back to the system in which everything went through, and we let whatever was put to us pass by; in which there was no control. We are not prepared to do that, because we must have better standards of practice.

Mr. Faber: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me—

Mr. Faber: The hon. Gentleman referred to me.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman referred to me in his speech, and he will forgive me if we cannot always give way on that basis.
The hon. Gentleman has to make up his mind whose side he is on. Is he on the side of an arms sales policy that balances out national interest—of course—and jobs—of course—but recognises that recourse to the words of respect for human rights is not enough and that it must be put it into practice? That is what is happening under the Labour Government, and what we did not see under the previous Government.
Several hon. Members referred to Mil Tec. Mil Tec was itself something of a scandal, because the previous Government failed to include the Isle of Man in the legislation that brought the UN embargo into effect. That was astonishing, but lax, as was so much that was done by the previous Government. We are simply not prepared to operate according to those standards.
This has been an important debate. It is the first to concentrate on how we get the balance right. The Government are happy for the debate to have taken place, and we congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). We believe that Parliament has a right to be involved in the process, and today Parliament has taken part. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Westbury, speaking on behalf of the main Opposition party, failed to take part in the process of parliamentary scrutiny.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, mindful of the conclusions of the Scott Report, commends Her Majesty's Government for its efforts to obtain agreement for a European Union Code of Conduct on the arms trade; and urges Her Majesty's Government to ensure that any such code sets high common standards governing arms exports for all Member States, and, in particular, to insist that export guidelines are transparent, unambiguous and pay due regard to human rights.

Orders of the Day — Criminal Procedure (Intermediate Diets) (Scotland) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am grateful for the agreement that has been reached through the usual channels to allow time for this very short but very important Bill to be debated. Many right hon. and hon. Members present tonight have been in the Chamber long enough this week, so we shall try to dispatch the business as quickly as possible.
The importance of the matters the Bill addresses cannot easily be overstated. As a result of a procedural irregularity, which has only recently come to light, a large number of summary prosecutions and previous convictions dating back to 1981 have been called into question. As of 27 March, the Crown had already been forced to abandon 71 cases. Many more are in the pipeline. The situation has already attracted widespread public attention and the purpose of the Bill is to put matters right as quickly as possible.
The difficulties the Bill is designed to address emerged as a result of recent judgments of the High Court of Justiciary in the cases of Mackay and Milligan. Taken together, those judgments make it clear that a summary court has no power to hold an intermediate diet if the trial diet has to be postponed for any reason. It follows that any order made at such a diet is a nullity, including the decision to fix a new date for trial, and that any subsequent proceedings, including a conviction and sentence, may themselves become fundamentally null.
Before considering the implications of the High Court decision, it may be helpful to hon. Members if I take a moment to explain, as briefly as possible, the background to it. Intermediate diets were first introduced into summary procedure in 1981 by virtue of section 15 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, which enabled, but did not require, the court to fix a diet, known as an intermediate diet, in respect of a case that was going to trial.
The purpose of the intermediate diet was to ascertain whether the parties were ready for trial and the accused still intended to plead not guilty—and therefore to ensure, so far as possible, that cases did not have to be adjourned on the day. Such last-minute adjournments are not only expensive and disruptive to court business; they cause a great deal of inconvenience to witnesses who have been summoned to court in the expectation of the trial going ahead. After their introduction in 1981, it appears that intermediate diets had comparatively little success and most courts gradually stopped holding them routinely.
However, in the early 1990s, following consultation and pilots in a number of sheriff courts, it was concluded that, with minor procedural changes, intermediate diets had the potential to be more productive in anticipating and avoiding the need for adjournment on the day of trial. Accordingly, the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995 contained provisions enabling the court to make inquiries


into the state of preparedness of the parties. It also empowered the Secretary of State by order to make the holding of intermediate diets mandatory in prescribed courts. That power has been exercised from April 1996 onwards, so that almost all summary courts, with the exception of a few of the smaller ones, are now required to hold intermediate diets before trial.
There is no doubt that the introduction of mandatory intermediate diets has resulted in a considerable increase in the number of cases disposed of without the need for a trial diet. In 1993–94, for example, 3,177 summary cases were disposed of by a plea of guilty at an intermediate diet. Three years later, in 1996–97, that figure had increased fourfold, to 13,583.
However, a widespread practice developed of fixing a further intermediate diet in cases where the trial diet had to be adjourned until a later date, in order to ascertain whether the case would go ahead on the new date. The purpose of these further intermediate diets was exactly the same as the initial diet, which was to determine whether the parties were ready for trial and therefore to avoid last-minute adjournments, if at all possible. That is the practice that has now been held to be invalid by the High Court's recent judgments.
In Mackay, the appellants appealed against the competency of proceedings on the ground that no intermediate diet had been fixed when their trial was further adjourned. That appeal was dismissed, but in doing so the High Court concluded that there was no statutory basis for intermediate diets to be held before any adjourned trial diet. In the light of the court's opinion in that case, which was handed down on 19 November 1997, the Crown took the view that further such diets should no longer be fixed, although some sheriffs continued to fix them.
Following Mackay, pleas as to the competency of summary proceedings were taken in a large number of cases around the country. A number of sheriffs raised the same issue themselves and, in order to clarify the situation, the Crown appealed against the decision of a sheriff in one such case, which resulted in the case of Milligan coming before the Appeal Court. On 12 March, the court held that a summary court had no power to make an order at what was described in Mackay as an "unintended" intermediate diet and that any such order was a nullity. It followed that the proceedings themselves became fundamentally null where the adjourned trial diet did not proceed on the date originally fixed.
I should emphasise that, to the best of my knowledge, no case has yet come to court in which a person has sought to have his or her conviction quashed in a case in which proceedings have been completed, but the same issues could well arise. The decision therefore raises a real possibility that persons convicted and sentenced at trial diets that were fixed at an invalid intermediate diet would be able to have their convictions and sentences quashed. In that event, those concerned might seek compensation—for example, where they had been imprisoned or disqualified from driving—the return of any fines they had paid and their criminal record to be expunged. In current cases, the Crown would have to consider instituting fresh proceedings, which might themselves be the subject of challenge.
Although no precise figures can be given of the number of cases involved, the Crown Office estimates that about 1,000 current cases are likely to be affected. Several thousand completed cases may be involved as well. Although the cases involved are those dealt with under summary procedure, which generally involves less serious offences, they are also likely to include persons who have received custodial sentences for violence, indecency, housebreaking and drugs offences and custody and disqualification for offences involving dangerous, disqualified or drunk driving.
If the Government took no action to address what appear to be the likely consequences of the High Court's decision, I have no doubt that the effect on both the criminal justice system and public confidence in Scottish criminal justice would be extremely severe. There would be considerable additional delays, expense, uncertainty and in a very real sense injustice. That is why we have brought forward the Bill today, with the agreement of the Opposition parties.
We have concluded that the best remedy is to amend the provisions relating to intermediate diets in section 148 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, to make it explicitly clear that courts may fix an intermediate diet at any time, whether before, on or after any date assigned as a trial diet. That provides the courts with the discretion they always thought they had to fix an intermediate diet when a trial diet is adjourned to a later date. That is the effect of clause 1(1)(a) and (b). Clause 1(2) provides that the amendment shall operate retrospectively, and clause 1(3) applies the same amendments to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, which preceded the 1995 Act.
Parliament is rightly reluctant to resort to retrospective legislation, unless a compelling case can be made out for doing so, because of the obvious potential for unfairness and oppression. There is no such unfairness or oppression in this instance, so I believe that this is one of the very rare cases in which it is both necessary and appropriate that legislation should have retrospective effect. The holding of an intermediate diet where a trial diet had been adjourned, which is what has been found to be invalid, involved no prejudice of any kind to the accused. Indeed, in many cases the additional intermediate diet which, it now appears, rendered the subsequent proceedings invalid, will have been fixed on the application of the defence.
Intermediate diets were introduced as long ago as 1981 and have operated ever since to the benefit of all parties, with no suggestion being raised until now as to the validity of such diets in certain circumstances. It would surely be absurd if Parliament did not legislate to cure what is no more than a technical procedural irregularity that caused no prejudice of any kind to the accused, with the result that a large number of cases had to be abandoned or reopened.
The Bill is vital to the proper administration of criminal justice in Scotland. Without it there is a risk of severe damage being done to public confidence in the system of justice and the prospects of substantial resources having to be expended in dealing with cases that, apart from a purely technical irregularity which the High Court found to be fatal, are otherwise entirely sound. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Michael Ancram: >: This is an unusual situation because this is a question not only of emergency legislation, but of retrospective legislation. Although we want this business to be concluded swiftly, I think it right that we show that we have tested it against the criteria that emergency legislation and retrospective legislation should be tested against. After all, emergency legislation bypasses the normal tests and democratic restraints that the House and the other place can exercise, and it should be used only in exceptional circumstances; there is a natural democratic presumption against retrospective legislation.
I believe that the tests are severe and precise. It must be seen that the legislation is strictly necessary and, significantly, that it does not cause injustice or unfairness after the event.
As the Minister said, a number of cases—I think he said 70 or 80—have been deserted or abandoned because of this situation. There are also 1,000 cases hanging around, waiting to be tried, and thousands of cases—the number is unquantifiable—could be affected retrospectively if the Bill were not passed.
I am grateful to the Minister and to the Secretary of State for consulting us, not only generally on the issue, but on the terms of the Bill and for being prepared to accept certain suggestions made by us to, I believe, make the Bill more effective. I also place on the record my gratitude to Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, a former Lord Advocate, who I readily accept has helped me to find my way through this procedural minefield in a way that might otherwise not have been possible, and who has enabled me to apply the tests that I have set out and to say tonight that I believe that they are met.
There are two areas: current cases and cases that have gone before. For current cases, the practical consequences of not changing the law are as follows. The Crown would be unable to seek convictions in cases in which more than one intermediate diet had taken place. Any orders made at such further intermediate diets would be incompetent. Such orders would include not only procedural decisions, such as the adjournment of trials; warrants for apprehension granted at such diets would also be affected. In such cases, the Crown would have no alternative but to abandon the proceedings. In certain instances, it might be possible to raise fresh proceedings, but in others the case would be time-barred. There may be other current cases in which a conviction has taken place, but the accused has not yet been sentenced or the days for making an appeal have not yet expired. In such cases, also, unless the law is changed, the conviction will fall.
On those grounds, to protect current cases, there is an obvious need to move with urgency. That is why I am satisfied that the tests for emergency legislation are met in this instance.
Obviously, the more sensitive question is whether the Bill should have retrospective effect. In my view, such legislation is justified only in the rarest of instances. Having very carefully considered all the issues involved, I believe that the circumstances justify the Bill having retrospective effect. That is necessary to protect some current cases, which will be affected by the problem that has arisen. It may also be necessary to protect an unquantifiable number of completed cases, dating back to

1981, in which convictions have been returned in proceedings in which more than one intermediate diet has taken place.
Since intermediate diets were introduced, sheriffs, procurators fiscal and defence lawyers have proceeded on the basis that it has been competent to hold more than one intermediate diet. That was the position before the holding of intermediate diets became mandatory, and that remained the position until the decision in Mackay, which the Minister mentioned.
Much more important, it should be remembered that the problem that has arisen relates to the competency of pre-trial procedure rather than the rules of procedure regulating the conduct of trials or questions relating to the admissibility or sufficiency of evidence at such trials. If the law is changed retrospectively, therefore, no question can arise of any accused being able to argue that the change has prevented him from arguing that he has suffered any substantive interference in his right to a fair trial. That is an important test.
The worst that an accused could complain of is that he has been inconvenienced by requiring to attend court more often than might have been the case and, I think in a few instances, that he has been remanded in custody, pending trial, for failing to attend a second or subsequent intermediate diet that, in the light of Mackay, ought not to have taken place. However, in the few instances in which the accused has ended up in custody, he would have done so only because he disobeyed an order of the sheriff to attend a specified diet, and in such circumstances it would be difficult to argue that any great injustice had arisen.
In those circumstances, I believe that it is necessary to balance the public interest and the interests of any accused that may be affected. I believe that, when that is done in the light of the circumstances, the balance tilts firmly in favour of allowing the Bill to proceed with retrospective effect. It would be most unsatisfactory if current prosecutions were to founder, or past convictions were to be quashed, as a consequence of a procedural irregularity of a nature that has only recently, and totally unexpectedly, been identified, in the circumstances that the Minister set out.
On the basis of those exceptional circumstances, on behalf of the Opposition, I am prepared to support the Second Reading of the Bill and to see it pass through all its stages as speedily as possible.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I suppose that, technically, I should declare an interest as an occasionally practising member of the Faculty of Advocates, although, until now, my interest in the intermediate diet has been somewhat peripheral and I do not believe that I have ever attended one, even in a professional capacity.
Like every lawyer, I find retrospective legislation repugnant. That is why I consistently voted against legislation the purpose of which was to allow the prosecution of alleged war criminals many years after some of them had first come to the United Kingdom. Leaving aside questions of principle, looking at the matter pragmatically, it seems to me that my opposition to that legislation has proved more sound than even I thought at the time.
However, in this case, cogent arguments exist to justify both emergency and retrospective legislation, so I can adopt much of what has been said by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I am prepared to give the Bill a fair wind, for two reasons. First, it creates no crime that did not previously exist; secondly, it constitutes no extension of the jurisdiction of the court. Had either of those principles been offended against, my position might have been different. However, in the light of what has been said by the Minister on behalf of the Government, it seems to me that the Bill should pass speedily through the House, because it is in the interests of justice that it should do so.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I have a fellow feeling with the Minister of State to be among such luminaries—adornments—of the Scottish legal system. I do not know whether we are Daniel in the lion's den or have fallen among thieves, but perhaps we should be careful about how much expertise we both claim with so much talented advice available to us.
I shall not detain the House except to say that I support the remarks made on behalf of the Opposition parties. Obviously, retrospective legislation is extremely undesirable, but in this case the case has been made. In fact, in this case the Government had no alternative but to introduce the Bill. For that reason, the Scottish National party will join other Opposition parties in supporting the Bill.
I want to pursue with the Minister a point that I have been pursuing with the Secretary of State for Scotland. I understand that the legal advice available to the Government is that there is little chance of an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, basically because, for the reasons that have been given by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), it is difficult to substantiate an argument that a person has been prejudiced as a result of the Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman did mention that people may have been detained in custody, albeit as a result of their own actions, as a result of the procedures that, currently, are regarded as irregular.
The Government have received from their lawyers advice to the effect that, because of the circumstances of the case, the European Court is unlikely to rule in favour of any person who goes before it pursuing such a claim. However, there have been circumstances—in relation to the fishing industry, for example—where Government lawyers have been extremely confident about their advice to the then Government before the European Court but were then sorely disappointed when judgments came in on the other basis.
Although I accept that the Bill is necessary, that there is no alternative, and that the retrospection is necessary—however undesirable it may be—I want to ask whether there is any possibility of a Treasury indemnity for the Scottish Administration of a new Parliament, established next year. I would not like there to be the possibility—

however remote—that the Scottish Parliament may be presented with an unquantifiable legal bill as a result of cases that may be pursued. I accept that that may be a remote possibility. If it is, there should be no difficulty presenting such an indemnity as it is unlikely to cost the Treasury any money. I know that the Secretary of State has considered the point and that the Minister has had an opportunity to do likewise. I should like to pursue that point while giving general support to the Bill and the arguments about why it is necessary.

Mr. McLeish: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to the debate.
I thank the Opposition for adopting a very constructive and thoughtful approach. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) identified the important principles behind the Bill and outlined the criteria that have been satisfied—at least in his eyes. I also thank the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) for his support.
I shall deal briefly with the point raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who had the courtesy to write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman raised the question of an indemnity for the Scottish Parliament in the event of its having to meet financial liabilities as a result of the problems that have arisen in relation to intermediate diets. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is concerned that either the domestic courts or the European Court of Human Rights might find the retrospective nature of this legislation unlawful, leaving the way open for convictions to be quashed and resulting in entitlement to
I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we have taken careful legal advice and, on the basis of that advice, we are totally satisfied that the retrospective provisions of the Bill are entirely consistent with both domestic and European law. I would not otherwise commend it to the House. From the perspective of the Scottish Parliament, the position would be far worse if the legislation were not enacted. While I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has made a reasonable point, it is a hypothetical one. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not envisage any unquantifiable liability ending up with the Scottish Executive or the Scottish Parliament. The most important consideration this evening is to move forward with the Bill in order to ensure that the liabilities to which the hon. Gentleman referred do not end up with the Scottish Executive or the Scottish Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),

That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. McFall.]

Question agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Swale Crossing

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McFall.]

Mr. Derek Wyatt: Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you for giving me the chance to put the case for the second crossing of the Swale. I have placed copies of this speech on two of my local constituency websites: Swale chamber of commerce, www.fenet.co.uk/swale; and Swale borough council, www.swale.gov.uk.
I am sorry that it is not possible to show a video of the current problems with the bridge or even colour slides in the Chamber tonight. I hope that one day this will be a Chamber of the 20th century of which we may be proud. In the meantime, I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister this evening. I hope that he will watch—and persuade the whole transport team to watch—the video depicting the problems with the bridge. It was made by Ray Featherstone, the youth leader of Sheerness county youth centre, with the help of local youngsters on the Isle of Sheppey a few years ago.
When I was parliamentary spokesperson for the new constituency of Sittingbourne and Sheppey in 1996, I was asked by Councillor Dennis Grover whether I could arrange a meeting on behalf of the Sheppey Industry Association with the then shadow Minister of Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short). I duly did so. The day before we were due to meet her in the House, she was transferred to what was then Overseas Development. I called Dennis to tell him that the meeting was off because my right hon. Friend had been moved to Overseas Development. As quick as a flash, he responded, "That's all right. The island has a better chance with her there—after all, we've been overseas for 1,000 years."
Although Great Britain is an island, there are people in our country who share a different understanding of the word "island". They are the people who live on Mull, Skye, the Isle of Wight, or, in my case, the Isle of Sheppey. They call themselves "islanders" because, for 1,000 years or more, they have been detached from mainland Britain. Islanders possess a different view of life and increasingly, because the islands have suffered greater hardships in terms of employment opportunities, health care, education and housing, they feel that they have been unloved and left out in the cold because no one in government understands their unique problems.
Our legal offshore islands suffer, at a micro level, all the problems of the United Kingdom mainland—but they suffer them at a level that is much more personal and debilitating. For instance, in the community of Leysdown on the east end of the Isle of Sheppey, where I recently conducted a Saturday surgery, it costs the population of 1,060 £4.20 return to go to the nearest shopping centre in the town of Sheerness. The bus runs once an hour and stops at 6 pm. The nearest accident and emergency unit is at Medway hospital on the mainland, which is only 20 miles away. As that hospital's A and E record is not what we would wish, many people travel to the A and E unit at the Kent and Canterbury hospital, which is only 32 miles away and is currently facing closure. Our new Sheppey community hospital has been delayed and delayed and delayed.
Worse still, if plans to close the magistrates courts in both Sheerness and Sittingbourne go ahead, it will cost citizens £6.80 to go to Chatham, or more to go to Maidstone magistrates court. They will have to travel across the bridge every time. Public transport currently takes more than three hours to get from Leysdown to Chatham—and longer to get to Maidstone—but it does not necessarily run at a convenient time when cases may be heard, and there is a considerable cost to the individual. Those problems have been compounded by the bridge. Nevertheless, they have been borne with some stoicism for generations, not just by the people of Leysdown, but by the people of Warden Bay, Eastchurch, Minster, Halfway, Queenborough, Bluetown and Sheerness.
The 1991 census gave the population of the island as 35,500, and today it is close to 40,000. The population almost doubles at weekends—especially when the clocks go forward—as many Londoners travel to Sheppey to visit their caravans at the east end of the island. The traffic is constantly delayed by the bridge.
Thirty-eight years ago yesterday, the then Conservative Government closed the naval dockyard at Sheerness, which caused unemployment on a scale never before experienced in our community. It broke up our community. Long-term unemployment continues to be a huge problem on the island, and stands at 23.8 per cent.—one of the highest levels in the south-east of England. Today, the port, under the ownership of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, is thankfully booming. It is the fifth biggest port in the United Kingdom and is perfectly placed to serve continental Europe—if we could only sort out the bridge.
Two years ago, the port was in competition with other United Kingdom and continental ports for a huge contract with a car importer. The port already imports cars for Citroen, Mazda, Volkswagen, Peugeot, Hyundai and Chrysler. The deal was done in that hands were shaken on it. The port management was chuffed as it had again proved the excellence of the port. Twenty minutes or so later, the car importer phoned from his car cancelling the contract—he was caught in an horrendous tailback of traffic as a result of the bridge being up.
The current bridge is a single-span lifting bridge. At the time of the closure of the docks, Percy Wells—our best ever Member of Parliament for the old constituency of Faversham—had campaigned for 20 years for a new bridge. He had been told by the Admiralty that it had to be a single span, as the other two bridges had previously been. How amazing—just before the bridge was built, the Admiralty left Sheerness. The bridge design was already redundant.
Every time a small yacht or a small tanker goes through it for pleasure or en route for Ridham dock, the bridge has to go up. In the summer, because it is a concrete bridge, it expands, and it has to be hosed down manually before it will come down again. It might be thought that such a small irritant, causing a waiting time of perhaps 20 to 30 minutes, is not much to shout about in the general scheme of things, but that would be wrong.
Ridham is expanding. In 1987, there were 442 liftings a year caused by the dock. By 1995, that had risen to 1,034 liftings a year or three a day—an increase of 120 per cent. The bridge was built in 1960 for traffic flows with a design capacity of 13,000 vehicle movements a day. Now the flow is just over 24,000 vehicle


movements a day, or 85 per cent. over the design capacity. At the weekends it can double or treble. In April 1997 the Kent county council 12-hour traffic flow recorded 21,063 vehicles, including 3,003 heavy goods vehicles.
The heavy goods vehicles equate to 14.25 per cent. of all traffic using the bridge and according to a Swale borough council report, there would be serious problems for the port, should the HGV traffic continue. We hope that it will continue, because Railtrack wants to make Sheerness a nodal point for rail freight, linking the port ultimately through the channel tunnel to Europe. That would not only create more jobs for Sheerness, but substantially increase the HGV traffic over the bridge.
As public transport declines—it cannot get any worse for us on the island—more and more people have to consider the car as the only way of getting around, notwithstanding the helpful changes in the Budget for rural transport. Over the past three years the problems relating to the bridge have been compounded by the new A249 dual carriageway, as well as a series of awful accidents on the bridge itself and either side of it, leading to delays of up to 10 hours and queues of 12 miles or more.
The Conservative Government, in their wisdom, decided that the solution to the bridge was to build the new A249 first. The A249 connects the M2 motorway to a roundabout, which in itself has caused unnecessary accidents because it is so poorly designed. The roundabout is 200 yd short of a single road leading to the bridge. In other words, 1,750 cars and lorries an hour travel on the new dual carriageway, only to meet a roundabout and then a single track across the bridge, which in the summer goes up eight times a day, but sometimes fails to come down.
It is not surprising that the group of Tory Ministers responsible for that decision are known as the East Ham group—East Ham being one stop short of Barking on the underground. Of course it had been their intention to build the bridge. Plans had been drawn up and £2 million of public money—our taxpayers' money—was spent on its design before the public inquiry was due to get under way last June.
The scheme was seriously flawed. It was back to front. It was the island that needed to be connected to the mainland, not the other way round. The islanders' needs should have been addressed first.
I support the transport review being conducted by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, even though it has led to a delay in our bridge, because it is wrong to waste taxpayers' money on schemes that have no Treasury Bills attached to them and which do not fit into a UK-wide transport strategy. Moreover, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Paymaster General, who has reversed the previous Government's private finance initiative policy, by not insisting that PFIs take the risk of paying for planning inquiries.
The results of the current review will be published in July. Whether our bridge goes forward fully funded depends on five criteria: accessibility, safety, economy, environment and integration. On accessibility, safety, economy and integration, I make the score 10 out of 10. I could be biased. On environment, we have had some problems, but all the environment groups have bought into

the need for the island to be connected to the mainland. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds must be especially congratulated on seeking a practical solution for the bridge.
To those like the Council for the Protection of Rural England who want a tunnel, the Highways Agency responded earlier in the week. It stated:
A tunnel crossing has been considered in detail but rejected primarily on environmental grounds. You will be aware that the Swale and its surroundings are Special Protection Areas under EU legislation, Sites of Special Scientific Interest under UK legislation and an internationally important Ramsar wetland site. Our proposals are required to have the smallest possible ecological effect on any option considered.
The Highways Agency went on:
In conclusion, the ecological effects of the proposed bridge would be less than those of a tunnel, and it must be borne in mind that it is the ecological aspect of the environment for which the Swale area is protected.
There is one criterion missing from the list: the Isle of Sheppey's psyche. Such a concept does not fit neatly into the way in which civil servants frame regulations, and cannot easily be understood by Ministers who never visit the island and have no real understanding of it.
In spite of the existing bridge, the Isle of Sheppey has some world-class businesses—Weidmuller, a family-owned German company in Halfway, is expanding by one third and hopes to open a new extension at the end of June; Abbott Laboratories, a Chicago-based pharmaceutical company listed on Wall street, in Queenborough; and the port of Sheerness, especially its fresh fruit operations and its car imports, as well as Co-Steel from Canada. There are businesses that have aspirations to become world class, such as Danepak, a Danish company, and our own local furniture maker, Regis Ltd.
In the global economy that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked us to embrace, those industries will not stand: they will fall if the bridge is not built. That would plunge the community into a new economic scenario worse than anything it has ever experienced.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate. The second crossing over the Swale is not only important for the good people of the Isle of Sheppey; it is essential for the regeneration of my constituency, the Medway towns and further afield, right down the Thames gateway area. That is reflected in the early-day motion tabled today by Kent and London Members of the Thames gateway group. Does my hon. Friend agree that the crossing is essential not just for Sheppey, but for the wider area of Kent and east London?

Mr. Wyatt: I thank my hon. Friend, and of course I agree with him. One of the problems is that we are running out of space on the mainland of Sittingbourne to develop new factories. We have space on Sheppey, but we have no bridge that works.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to fulfil a pre-election pledge, which apparently emanated from Millbank tower and is frequently quoted in my local papers, that the bridge would be built before the end of the century. I urge the Minister to sign the cheque this evening for the second crossing of the Swale.

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) on his success in securing the debate. I appreciate that the matter is important not just for him, but for all the people of north-east Kent, those who live and work on the Isle of Sheppey, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) emphasised, others who live in the Medway area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey made a powerful case for a second Swale crossing. As he knows, the Government have embarked on a fundamental review of transport policy. The case for this scheme must be considered in the context of that review. Our objectives are a strong economy, a sustainable environment and an inclusive society. Transport links are a vital part of those aims.
Good communications, including transport links, are central to the economy and quality of life. However, the backdrop to the fundamental review is a candid recognition that we need a shift in direction. Revised national road traffic forecasts published last autumn show traffic increasing by almost 40 per cent. over the next 20 years. If current policies continue, congestion will get worse, the impact on the environment will be even more severe, and those who have no access to private transport will be even more disadvantaged.
Therefore, we must develop an integrated transport system that makes the best use of the contribution that each transport mode can make, and ensures that all options are considered on a basis that takes into account from the outset considerations of accessibility, integration, safety, the environment and the economy—factors which my hon. Friend highlighted, because he has taken account of our review, and he knows that those are the criteria by which schemes are being assessed.
Above all, an integrated transport system must be sustainable. One of the encouraging aspects of what is an ambitious task is the degree of consensus on the need for change. We cannot achieve that in isolation, and we are actively engaging those involved in transport. It is a feature of the policy development work now under way that we are involving a wide range of external advice and expertise, including local authorities, businesses, trade unions, transport professionals and transport users. That is the context for the roads review—examining the role that trunk roads should play in an integrated and sustainable transport policy.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister returned from the successful Kyoto summit at the end of last year with a legally binding target for the European Union to reduce greenhouse gases by 8 per cent. The United Kingdom contribution towards this target, which has to be determined by the spring or the summer, is likely to be above the average, but, for CO2 emissions, it is still likely to be somewhat lower than the domestic 20 per cent. reduction aim.
To meet that target, measures will need to be taken in all sectors of the economy. Under unchanged policies, emissions from transport are projected to rise at a faster rate than any other sector. The Government have signalled their intention to tackle the growth of emissions from the transport sector. A number of measures to reduce

CO2 emissions from transport, in addition to the fuel duty strategy, are being considered as part of the integrated transport policy review.
Against that background, and the background of increased congestion, we have three broad options for roads: first, to make better use of existing infrastructure; secondly, to manage demand; and, thirdly, to provide new infrastructure. I shall briefly cover those options.
The first option is to make the best use of the existing road network. It is the obvious first choice to make best use of existing infrastructure. It has been provided at substantial cost, and we must optimise that investment. Technologies old and new can help us to make better use of our roads network. They include variable speed limits on, for example, sections of the M5, variable message signs to guide motorists away from congested areas, and the dedicated bus lane on the M4 to Heathrow airport. Those are examples, and I readily accept that none of those options would tackle the problem that my hon. Friend has rightly identified— the difficulty with a bridge that opens, but does not always close, on the link to Sheppey.
Some of the measures to which I have referred may also bring safety benefits, and we shall need to ensure that those are given proper priority. However, we need to be realistic about the benefits that the various options can bring. I hope that I have made it clear that I recognise their limitations in relation to the circumstances of the case that my hon. Friend has raised.
The second option is managing demand, to which we must give serious consideration. Managing demand encompasses reducing the need to travel, by land use planning—for example, an assessment of the extent to which a shift to other modes can be encouraged—and, inevitably, the question of controlling demand by pricing or rationing mechanisms. At a local level, many local authorities are exploring, by means of integrated transport packages, how to combine those measures so that mobility is maintained, but the adverse environmental consequences of that mobility are reduced.
The third option is providing new infrastructure. The Highways Agency's programme of small safety schemes is continuing, but all major new construction is under review. Providing new infrastructure is a difficult option, financially and in terms of the impact that it may have on the environment. Our starting point is that we shall not proceed with major new road construction unless we are satisfied that there is no better alternative; even then, there will be difficult choices to be made within the limited resources available.
There is no substitute for a rigorous case-by-case examination of the options. The second volume of the roads review consultation document, which we published last year, sets out, region by region, the perceived traffic problems and the roads programme inherited from our predecessors. We are carefully examining all the responses, and we expect to publish the outcome of the review later this year.
The existence of a scheme in the inherited programme is seen as prima facie evidence that there is a transport problem. We sought from our regional consultations a view on whether those are the most important problems or whether others deserve greater priority. We envisage two outputs from this part of the review: first, a firm short-term investment programme and, secondly,


a programme of studies to consider the remaining problems out of which the medium and long-term investment programmes will emerge.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, the A249 trunk road provides the only road link between the Kent mainland and the Isle of Sheppey, with its important deep-water port at Sheerness. The single-carriageway road is heavily trafficked, and the Swale has to be crossed on the lifting road-rail Kingsferry bridge, which is raised to shipping several times a day. Long queues often form, and traffic can be delayed, which is of considerable concern for a variety of reasons. Individuals are inconvenienced and, as my hon. Friend has suggested, investors may be deterred from investing because of concern about congestion. The emergency services and the region's national health trust, whose nearest accident and emergency hospital is located off the isle, are also concerned.
The prospects for Sheppey's commercial and industrial development are significantly hampered by the current poor access arrangements for the isle. The Government recognise that.
The second Swale crossing scheme has been proposed to improve the reliability of access to and from the isle for the benefit of local residents and businesses, and to provide a second emergency access. The scheme would provide a fixed-bridge crossing with a 29 m clearance for shipping. It would improve a 5 km section of the trunk road route up to Queenborough. I note that implementing the scheme would complete the programme of improvements from the M2 to the port of Sheerness. My hon. Friend rightly said that the rest of the programme had been put in place, but that that crucial element had been left behind by the previous Government.
The Swale and surrounding areas are recognised nationally and internationally as important sites for birds and their habitats. My hon. Friend has rightly and fairly mentioned the potential environmental difficulties that might arise from the proposed scheme. Great care will need to be taken to minimise the impact of the scheme on these important ecological sites. The project will allow intended developments such as the Thames gateway project to help to generate employment, enhancing the commercial prospects of the isle. The cost of the scheme

is estimated at £79 million, which includes the cost of preparing and supervising the project, but excludes value added tax.
The Government office for the south east held three day-long seminars last autumn as part of our consultation process on integrated transport. A seminar in Ashford on 14 October considered transport corridors in the east of the region, including links with Sheppey.
Strong representations were made in support of the second Swale crossing scheme, and there was a clear consensus among delegates that the scheme should be given high priority. That view has also been strongly reflected in the written contributions that we have received about the scheme. My hon. Friend has been diligent in pressing the case for the scheme, and has been in regular correspondence with my noble Friend Baroness Hayman, who is responsible for roads policy within the Department.
I recognise the importance of a second Swale crossing scheme for the local community, and I take this opportunity to assure my hon. Friend that we shall be taking all these views, as well as the points that he and others have made, fully into account in the current review.
Developing a forward-looking integrated transport policy that supports a strong economy, contributes to a sustainable environment and helps to create a just and inclusive society is a huge challenge. Through the work now under way on trunk roads, we want to achieve a robust short-term programme and a system for planning future investment in the road network—whether by measures to make better use of the existing network, or by providing new infrastructure—that is fair and seen to be fair, and which addresses transport problems squarely in the context of an integrated strategy.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing these important transport issues to the attention of the House. I know that he has been consistent in his advocacy of the proposed second Swale crossing, and I am sure that he will continue to press the case for this project in the months ahead. However, I am sure that he will also appreciate that, until we have completed our review, we cannot say what conclusions we shall reach on the proposed Swale crossing.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eight o'clock.